P AYYAKKUTTI ALIAS VENKATACHALAM PATTAR Vs. PSKRISHNA PAITER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Speaking for myself, I do not as at present advised, differ from the judgment prepared by Sadasiva Jyer, J., bat in view of the importance of this question, the conflict between Achntha Menon V/s. Sankaran Nair 12 Ind. Cas. 1007 : 36 M. 380 : 22 M. L. J. 118 : 10 M.L.T. 521 : (1911) 2 M. W. N. 929 and Zimorin Rao Avergal of Calicut V/s. Untkat Karnavat (sic) Nair 65 Ind. Cas 380, 88 M. L. J. 275, 27 M. L. T. 111 : 15 L W 6 and the fact that the members of the Bench are not in agreement on all points, I think that it will be better before disposing finally of the reference to call for a finding from the Subordinate Court as to whether in 1859 and 1867, the dates mentioned in the revised judgment of the Subordinate Judge, lands granted on the tenures known as Santhathi Brahmaswom and Adimayavana were inalterable as between the grantor and the grantee; and, if so, whether on alienation by the grantee, the grantor was entitled to resume the lands and re-enter. Fresh evidence may be taken. The finding will be submitted by the Subordinate Judge of Ottappalam within 6 months, and 10 days will be allowed for filing objections. Mr. Justice Abdur Raham who has left the Court concurred in there questions. Oldfield, J.

(2.) I agree with the terms of the reference proposed and reserve further observations. Coutts Troiter, J.

(3.) I agree and, like Oldfield, J., wish to reserve any expression of opinion at present. Sadasiva Iyer, J.