SETHUPATHI AVERGAL Vs. KUPPUSAMI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appellant is the present Rajah of Ramnad, the owner of an ancient Zamindary. He brought this suit to recover possession with mesne profits for 3 years before suit of the village of Nedumthulasi within the area of his Zamindari which village had been alienated in three ways in the years 1894, 1895 and 1902 respectively in favour of the 1st defendant (Kuppusami Iyer alias Naganatha Iyer). Unless all these three transactions are set aside or are nullities it seems prima facie difficult to see how the plaintiff's salt in ejectment and for possession could succeed, as each of the three transactions gives to the 1 defendant the right to hold possession of the village on the date of this suit (namely, 30 June 1913).

(2.) The first transaction was a lease granted by the plaintiff's father, the then Rajah, in September 1894 under Exhibit C. Under this deed, the 1 defendant was entitled to enjoy the village as lessee for 40 years till the 1 July 1934, that is, till more than 21 years from the date when the suit was brought and more than thirteen years from the date on which this judgment is pronounced by me.

(3.) The second transaction was again an alienation by the plaintiff's father in June 1895 under Exhibit I by which the village was gifted outright to the 1 defendant with fall powers of gift, sale, etc.