1. There is no force in this appeal. The plaintiff's suit was brought to recover arrears of rent due by the defendants under a letting made to them by the plaintiff. It is found by the lower appellate Court that the defendants took a lease from the plaintiff alone and on the expiration of that lease the defendants continued to remain in possession of the property on the basis of the lease. Subsequently to the years for which the rent is claimed in this litigation the defendants were ejected in a suit brought by the plaintiff alone. Both the lower Courts have given a decree for the amount of the arrears. This appeal has been preferred and the grounds of appeal are substantially that there has been litigation between the plaintiff and other parties in relation to the property in dispute, and other property, which is alleged to be endowed property, and that the defendants, if they pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiff, may be held responsible for the same at the suit of other parties. In other words, they question the title of the plaintiff to make the lease under which they took and have been in possession. It is one of the best settled rules of law that a lessee is estopped from denying his lessor's title. In the case of Musammat Purnia v. Torab Ally 3 Wyman's Rep. 14 it was held that the question of the lessor's title was one foreign to a suit for rent instituted against the lessee, though the ostensible lessor might be merely a trustee and as such liable to account to the cestui que trust. This case is cited in the case of Jainarayan Bose v. Kadimibini Dasi 7 B.L.R. 723 (note). The Courts below were right in the decision at which they arrived and we dismiss this appeal with costs.