VIDYAPURNA THIRTHASWAMI Vs. UGGANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Munsif states that the mulgar and the mulgemdar are jointly entered in the register as puttahdars. The District Judge says that the mulgar is the puttahdar and this seems to be supported by Exhibit D. It is strongly contended before us that the mulgenidar alone is the puttahdar, and the puttah, Exhibit B, as translated to us, seems to bear this interpretation. We must ask the District Judge to enquire and report who is, in fact, the registered puttahdar.

(2.) Fresh evidence may, if necessary, be taken on this question. The report should be submitted within one month, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

(3.) In compliance with the above order, the District Judge of South Canara submitted his report to the effect, that the plaintiff, according to the true translation, was the registered puttadar. Defendant's name was merely entered on the puttah as the mulgeni tenant under the plaintiff.