1. This judgment will govern First Appeal 99-B/35 as well as First Appeal 8/36. They both arise out of the same judgment. We will deal with F.A. 99-B/35 first. The facts were placed before us in a somewhat confused state but once they are disentangled the questions which remain are not difficult. The property in dispute consists of a number of different plots which have been shown in a map prepared by the commissioner appointed for that purpose in the lower Court. It originally belonged to one Hatamsha and from him descended to the defendants, (except the fifth and sixth), as shown in the following tree. Defendant 1 got an undivided 8 annas and defendants 2, 3 and 6 an undivided 2 annas 8 pies each. There has been no partition by metes and bounds but the parties being Mahomedans succeeded to separate and distinct shares.

2. The dispute in First Appeal 99-B/35 relates to plots Nos. 2 and 3. We take the numbers from the commissioner's map. We will recite the facts relating to plot No. 3 first. On 2nd July 1913 defendant 1 leased his un-undivided interest in plot No. 3 to defendant 15 (who is the appellant in this appeal) by a document Ex. 15., D-1. Exhibit P-10 is a copy of th