1. The appellants before me are the plaintiffs in the suit. They brought a suit alleging that Ram Rattan, ancestor of the plaintiffs, was the owner in possession of the property in dispute. A rent note was executed by the defendant-respondent and that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiffs as Ram Rattan having died in the year 1953, the plaintiffs inherited his property. It was alleged that the defendant, who is the tenant, having failed to pay the rent after the death of Ram Rattan, was liable to be ejected. In the alternative it was prayed that if the defendant was not found to be a tenant and found to be in illegal possession of the suit land, the suit for possession be decreed. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that Ram Rattan was neither the owner of the property in dispute nor was in possession thereof. He further pleaded that he never took the said property on rent from Ram Rattan and also that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in dispute. It was the open place, to begin with, and the defendant was not the tenant under the plaintiffs. In fact he was in possession of the said property for more than 12 years and, therefore,