JUDGMENT :- Plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 are the appellants. The suit was filed by the appellants along with the second plaintiff for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 300 as damages. The defence was that though the second plaintiff, whose children are plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4, is the owner, first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the land under an oral lease granted by the second plaintiff. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property, that the defendants are in possession and that the oral lease set up by them was true. In regard to the oral lease, in addition to the evidence of the first defendant the trial Court relied on the admission of the second plaintiff who was examined as P.W. 4 on commission. In appeal the lower appellate court confirmed the finding that the first defendant was in possession and the plaintiffs were not in possession on the date of suit. The lower appellate Court also confirmed the finding on the question of oral lease.

2. In this second appeal the learned counsel for the appellants contended that both the trial Court and t