Dixit J. - (1.)This second appeal raises an interesting question of jurisdiction and the suit giving rise to the appeal was filed under the following circumstances.
(2.)The suit is a suit for injunction and the property in suit consists of two pieces of land described in these proceedings as Prat No. 1 and Prat No. 2 of Survey No. 56. These two properties are of the ownership of defendants Nos. 5 and 6. The plaintiff claims to hold the lands under a permanent lease dated June 4, 1947, and his case is that he got these properties from defendants Nos. 5 and 6. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who are the appellants to this appeal, claim to be the tenants of these very properties under an oral lease from defendants Nos. 5 and 6 since before 1942. The defendants, therefore, say that as they are tenants of the suit properties, the plaintiff cannot get an injunction against them.
(3.)Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge raised as many as seven issues, of which issue No. 4 was in the following terms :
"Do defendants Nos. 1 to 4 prove that they are lessees of the suit premises or any part thereof, under a lease taken by them from defendants Nos. 5 and 6 -