litigation between the parties and the findings entered therein. All throughout the plaintiff was relying on a lease from Achuthan and Vellachi in favour of his mother which he claimed devolved on him consequent on the death of his mother. He had staked such a claim before the Land Tribunal also. He lost before the Land Tribunal and also before this Court earlier in that respect. In a second appeal filed by the defendants as S.A.No.523/1985 which arose from O.S.No.266/1978 which was a mere suit for injunction, it was found that the plaintiff in the suit was not in possession of the entire property and he was granted a decree in respect of a portion of the property shown as A schedule. The courts below, according to the learned counsel, have erroneously found that this Court had concluded that title to the property continued with Vellachi and nephew of Ambady, Achuthan, and having purchased that right, plaintiff has become title holder of the property. According to the learned counsel, having banked on a lease for the occupational and possessory rights, the plaintiff cannot now fall back upon the title of Vellachi and Achuthan. Further it is contended that all throughout the defendants have
