Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The defendant in the action from which the second appeal has arisen has now taken the point that the judgment of the Court appealed against was one made on an application for review to the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff whose suit had been dismissed by the trial Court appealed to the lower appellate Court. In the first place his appeal was also dismissed. He thereupon applied to the lower appellate Court for review and the review was granted and in the place of the dismissal of the appeal a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the property sued for. This is what the learned Subordinate Judge says with regard to the ground on which he granted the review The only ground urged for review was that the Court failed to note the decision in Subba Goundan v. Krishnamachari A. I. R. 1922 Mad. 112 quoted by the appellants vakil, and wrongly noted the contention of the appellants in para. 5 of its judgment. After hearing both parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellants contentions are correct. The appellants no doubt urged the contention mentioned in para 5 of this Courts judgment in the lower Court. In appeal they s