It is plaintiff's theory, based upon the trial court's findings, that no agreement existed for plaintiff to pay taxes, and being under no obligation to pay when the property was sold for delinquent taxes the defendants' title was extinguished and plaintiff thereupon was entitled to purchase the tax certificate in opposition to his landlords' title. In support of this agreement plaintiff relies upon Findley v. Lynn, 196 Okla. 322, 164 P.2d 989; Smith v. Shaw, 196 Okla. 497, 166 P.2d 93; and Phillips et al. v. Gibbs et al., 198 Okla. 270, 177 P.2d 1017. It is to be noted that in Findley v. Lynn, supra, we pointed out explicitly that the tenant bore no obligation to pay taxes because of his tenancy, but apparently therein no question was present concerning the effect of the tenants' failure to pay rent. In the Shaw case, above cited, we took notice of the fact that there was no agreement under which the defendant had any duty to pay taxes.

While it is the general rule that a tenant in possession is estopped to deny the title of his landlord, especially as such title existed at the time of the tenancy, such rule is generally applied to actions which are necessarily possessory in character or founded merely upon the relation of landlord and tenant. Hamill v. Jalonick, 3 Okla. 223, 41 P. 139; Young v. Severy, 5 Okla. 630, 49 P. 1024; Findley v. Lynn, 196 Okla. 322, 164 P.2d 989. But where the landlord himself prosecutes a suit against the tenant presenting an issue of title and seeking a judgment which will preclude the tenant, whether as to title in fee or as to any interest in the land greater than necessary to support the tenancy, the doctrine of estoppel against the tenant does not apply. In the recent case of Findley v. Lynn, supra, the third paragraph of the syllabus is: