KUNHAPPAN Vs. KUNHAPPA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the 1st defendant in a suit for permanent injunction against entry into the plaint properties and for damages for wrongful entry and misappropriation of profits already committed. The suit properties belonged to Upparandi tarwad, the karnavan whereof had leased out the trees therein to the plaintiff on September 5, 1945, under Ext. A2 for a term of four years and before the expiry of that term leased the trees afresh on May 6, 1947, as per Ext. A3 for a term of 12 years therefrom. The Munsif found that finding has been upheld by the Subordinate Judge that the defendants have trespassed into the property and have plucked 518 coconuts from the palms there. The 1st defendant is a member of the said tarward and defendants 2 and 3 claim possession under a lease of 1955 from the karnavan. They contended Ext. A3 to be invalid. The courts below found Ext. A3 to be valid and subsisting and therefore the defendants' entry and removal of coconuts wrongful and have decreed the suit.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant contended that the karnavan could not have granted a fresh lease before the expiry of the term of the prior lease under Ext. A2, that there was no consideration or necessity to justify it and that the karnavan having granted a power of attorney, Ext. B2 dated December 28, 1945, to the Senior Anandaravan in regard to the management of the tarwad, could not himself have executed the lease deed as it would amount to a revocation of the agency that was coupled with interest. I find little force in these contentions.

(3.) S.202, Contract Act, provides: