KUNJAN KANDAN Vs. MANOHARA VARMAN THIRUMULPADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit that has led to this second appeal, was for the eviction of the appellant from the suit properties on the ground, that upon a lease deed, Ext. D-4, in his favour being set aside under a preliminary decree for partition of the respondent's tarwad, the possession of the appellant became wrongful. THE suit was decreed with respect to item 1 and a but thereon and was dismissed with respect to item 3, in which the third defendant, another member of the respondent's tarwad, was alone interested. THE question which survives for determination in this second appeal concerns only item 1 property and the hut.

(2.) THAT property belonged to the tarwad of the respondent & had been leased to the appellant's predecessor by Ext. D-5, in the year 1085, for a term of eight years. In the year 1111, the tarwad gave the lease to the appellant by Ext. D-4, reciting that the appellant's possession till then was under an oral lease. By Ext. P-1, the preliminary judgment in O. S. 40 of 1114, a suit for partition by one of the members of the respondent's tarwad, ext. D-4 and certain tarwad alienations were wholly set aside. Ext. P-1 was on the 26th Medom,1119. But no final decree was passed and so there was no decree for recovery of possession of the suit properties. The present suit was commenced well within twelve years of the date of Ext. P-1. It has been found by the lower courts, in the present case, that Ext. D-4 having been set aside, the appellant's possession was wrongful after Ext. D-4 and that he is liable to be evicted from item 1 and the hut.