P. VEDA BHAT Vs. MAHALAXMI AMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the primary question which arises for consideration is whether there has been a forfeiture of the mulgeni lease evidenced by Ex. P -1, by reason of alienations made by the mulgeni tenant, who is now the first defendant, of the tenancy. By Ex. P -7 she transferred her mulgeni rights in some of the properties, and by Ex. D -I she transferred her right in the remainder of the properties, with the result that the mulgeni right has now been wholly alienated. Both the lower Courts have held that as the alienation under each deed of transfer was only of a part, no forfeiture has been incurred. The clause against alienation and providing for re -entry is set out at length in paragraph 24 of the District Munsiff's judgment.

(2.) IN Chatterton v. Terrell, (1923) A.C. 578 which was on appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Terrell v. Chatterton, (1922) 2 Ch. 647 . (which in turn reversed the decision of Astbury, J.) one of the learned Law Lords expressed himself thus:

(3.) THE learned advocate for respondents 2 to 5, who are the earlier alienees under Ex. P -7 has raised two questions. One is that the later alienation evidenced by Ex. D -1 was a collusive affair brought about by the plaintiff for the purpose of enabling him to say that there has been a forfeiture. This point is dealt with by the District Munsiff under the fourth issue in paragraph 27 of his judgment and has been found against them. The District Judge does not deal with it in the course of his judgment. Apparently, it was not raised before him. These defendants preferred a memorandum of objections in answer to the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and the memorandum covered only two points other than the point now raised.