( 1 ) ON 9-8-1937 a document purporting to be a permanent lease was executed, by Suraj Bali and chandra Bali, defendants 2 and 3 in favour of Nurul Hasan Khan, defendant 1. On 3-3-1947, Sri krishna Lal and Bhabhuti instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for possession of the property covered by the perpetual lease.

( 2 ) THEY gave a pedigree with their plaint and alleged that they themselves, defendants 2 and 3 ram Milan, and Ram Dularey were members of a joint Hindu family to which the property belonged; that defendants 2 and 3 were the kartas of the family and had executed the lease and that the lease was in excess of the power of a karta and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT l filed a written statement in which he pleaded that Section 180 barred the suit: that the document of lease was valid and that the defendant was not a trespasser. They raised other pleas also but it is not necessary to go through them at this stage.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif framed several issues, one of which related to the question whether the suit was barred by Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act. He found that the suit was so barred and he directed the plaint to be retur