The defendants are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal arises way instituted for recovery of possession of the suit property with building standing thereon together with profits, past and future. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and was confirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court. Hence this second appeal.

The plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title let the suit property on 6th May, 1903, to one Hamed Beary, the predecessor of the defendant. The lessee died and the property came into the possession of his sister Kunhi Pathumma. The plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title instituted a suit, O.S.No.155 of 1917 against Kunhi Pathumma and another for recovery of possession on the strength of the lease in favour of Hamed Beary. That suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no apportionment of rent. After the death of Kunhi Pathumma, the defendants who are her daughters continued in possession of the property. In 1930, the plaintiff’s predecessor Akbar Khan issued a notice determining the tenancy and instituted the suit O.S.No.198 of 1930 for recovery of possession of the property. That suit was compromised and a compromise decree was passed on 25th March