1. The defendant set up the title of Kandasami Pillai to half of the shop let to him. He is not prevented from doing so by the fact that Ramalingam's name alone appears in the lease. See Kuppu Konan v. Tirugnana Sambundam Pillai 21 M. 461.
2. The District Munsif should have framed an issue dealing with this question. I must now do so and ask him to find whether the plaintiff's vendor Ramalingam Pillai was entitled to the whole shop of which the rent is claimed and as such entitled to collect all the rent.
3. Fresh evidence may be adduced. The finding should be submitted within six weeks from this date and 7 days will be allowed for filing objections.