YOHANNAN Vs. VASUDEVAN CHAKKIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 12 of 1113 of the district Court of Kottayam, a suit for redemption, are the appellants before us. Though a number of pints were indicated the only point pressed before us by mr. K. P. Abraham, learned counsel for the appellants, is that an option for renewal obtains under Ext. A dated 9. 1. 1074 and in view of that, redemption should have been refused by the court below. The clause in Ext. A on which reliance has been placed reads as follows: "12 RWLsoeu Wum'v Bvw I ROLD WLeu kam vyvfo kumpowspl WLe 3/4mjv k3/4mrjldou 15 jms3/4mo 15 30 vnfooq Aa0"ovfvwlw fdv bilgu olrm Iuofm kmam"owspl Raodfmjou yofmy0 Iuofmr"lao3/40 IDV kodrcr owc vi"m (KOV ). "

(2.) THE provision for renewal embodied in the clause extracted above, as we understand it, will be available only for one renewal at the end of 12 years from 9. 1. 1074 and not for similar renewals in perpetuity at the end of every cycle of 12 years from the said date. According to us the option must be considered as having spent itself in 1086 and as no longer available as a defence to redemption at present.

(3.) TO the same effect are the observations of Mukerji, J. in A. I. R. 1919 Calcutta 620: "where there is a covenant for renewal, if the option does not state the terms of renewal, the new lease would be for the same period and on the same terms as the original lease in respect of all the essential conditions thereof, except as to the covenant for renewal itself".