interest. Occupation of land by a person other than the vendor constitutes notice to the purchaser. See the following cases: Kabba & Anor v. D. S. Young (1944) 10 W.A.C.A. 135; Daniels v. Davison (1809) 33 E.R. 978; and Omosanya v. Anifowoshe (1959) 4 F.S.C. 94. Reason and common-sense demand that a purchaser should inspect land he intends to buy with a view to ascertaining (i) if there is any person in occupation, and (ii) the rights or interests which such person may have or posses in the land. In Hunt v. Luck (1902) 1 Ch. 428 at 433, Vaughan Williams L.J. described the position as follows: 'It means that, if a purchaser or a mortgagor is not in possession of the property he must make inquiries of the person in possession - of the tenant who is in possession - and find out from him what his rights are, and, if he does not choose to do that then whatever title he acquires as purchaser or mortgagee will be subject to the title or right of the tenant in possession.' A tenant in possession under an informal lease has equities which he could enforce against the vendor as well as against the purchaser from the vendor, (see Kabba & Anor v. D. S. Young, (supra)). There- fore, a person purchasing when there is a tenant in possession, if he neglects to inquire into the title or to inspect the land must take, subject to such right as the tenant may have. See Olowu v. Oshinubi (1958) L.L.R 21. In Sanusi Imam v. Sanni Dawodu (1960) W.N.L.R. 150, the plaintiff had been digging and carrying away sand from the land since 1948 under a licence granted by one Onikoro family, the owners of the land. In.1956, the same family granted, in respect of the same land, similar licence to the defendant. In 1957, the plaintiff obtained a deed of grant of a lease from the same family under