The matter arising in this civil miscellaneous appeal is whether in view of the provisions of section 7 of Madras Act XV of 1946 the defendants are able to resist the execution of the decree for eviction passed in O.S. No. 169 of 1940. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, who belong to one family, whereby the plaintiffs were to own the whole of the family house - which is the subject-matter of the dispute - and in return for which they executed a promissory note in favour of the defendants. The defendants were however allowed to remain in possession of two rooms as tenants of the plaintiffs, the further arrangement being that the interest due on the promissory note executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants should be set off against the rent due for the two rooms. The plaintiffs alleged that not only did the tenants fail to pay the rent and that the tenancy was therefore at an end; but that they had trespassed into a third room. It was finally held in Letters Patent Appeal that although the plaintiffs and the defendants had not become divided and that the family house still remained technically an asset of the joint family,