GANAPATHI MUDALI Vs. VENKATALAKSHMINARASAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are satisfied that there has been some confusion created in the decision of the two appeals out of the two suits by the lower Appellate Court. The lease on which the plaintiff relied in the plaint in one, of the suits was a lease or. muchilika from year to year alleged to have been created in the plaintiff s father s favour for a premium of Rs. 10 and a yearly rent of Rs. 7. The right in dispute in that suit was the mirasi right in certain lands.

(2.) The lease on which the plaintiff relied in the other suit was a lease or muchilika alleged to have been created in favour of one Krishnaswami Iyer who is alleged to have transferred his rights as lessor to the plaintiff by sale-deed, Exhibit G.

(3.) The lower Appellate Court relies on the evidence of the plaintiff s 2nd witness to find in the plaintiff s favour that the defendant was the plaintiff s tenant in respect of both the mirasi lands and the shrotriem lands. On a perusal of the plaintiff s 2nd witness s evidence, it is clear to us that he refers to a muchilika for one year certain relating to the mirasi land alone in the plaintiff s father s favour and does not speak about the alleged lease in favour of Krishnasami Iyer. The learned Judge has also overlooked the circumstance that while the plaint in the mirasi land suit relies on a yearly tenancy, the evidence of the plaintiff s 2nd witness relates to a tenancy for one year certain.