Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of law on which it is said there is no direct authority.

2. The petitioner brought the suit for recovery of the first years rent payable under a registered kadapa executed by the respondent on 23rd May, 1935, for a term of five years. The defence was that out of the 5 acres 40 cents covered by the kadapa (Ex. A.), 4 acres and .10 cents belonged to the petitioners adoptive mother, that the petitioner who was managing her properties on her behalf leased the said 4 acres and 10 cents along with 1 acre and 30 cents of his own land, describing the entire property as his own, that part of the rent proportionate to the extent belonging to her was paid and accepted by the petitioners adoptive mother and that the balance had been paid to the petitioner. The kadapa recites that the properties leased were in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and contains a covenant by the respondent to pay the rent to the petitioner. There can be no doubt therefore that the respondent took the lease from the petitioner as the absolute owner of the properties leased. It has, however, been found as a fact b