Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. This second appeal raises a somewhat important question relating to the construction of Section 67, Evidence Act. The original suit was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the owner of the lands in suit, that the defendants had no occupancy rights, that the defendants were in possession as lessees under the plaintiff and for the recovery of possession of the land with mesne profits. The defendants pleaded that they were entitled to occupancy rights in the suit lands, that the plaintiff was not entitled to eject them, and that the plaintiff was entitled only to recover a rent of Rs. 10 per annum and not any mesne profits.

2. To prove the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff put in Ex. M, a muchilika alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 to Ramaswami Iyer, the plaintiffs vendor, on 2nd August 1893. Defendant 1 denied having executed Ex. M. He is a marksman, not able to write his name. Ex. M purports to have been executed by defendant 1 and to have been attested by two witnesses, (1) Subbaraya Ayyan and (2) Srinivasa Iyer, and purports to have been written in the handwriting of Nanjundayyan, who purports to have signed