C VENKATACHARIAR Vs. NARASIMHA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in a suit brought by a mittadar to eject the defendants who claim to hold under a permanent lease.

(2.) Two questions have been argued before us (1) whether the defendants hold on a permanent tenure and (2) whether, if they did so held, they have forfeited their tenure by renouncing their character as lessees by setting up a title in a third person, within the meaning of Section 11(g) of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) As regards the 1st point, we have been referred to Bajaram v. Narasinga 23rd August, 1918., Foulkes v. Muthuswami Goundan (1898) I.L.R. 21 Mad. 503 : 8 M.L.J. 207, Venkata- ramana v. Venkatapathi . and Rama Aiyangar v. Anga Guruswami Ghetti . in which the meaning of the words saswathom and kayom occurring in leases have been construed. We do not think it necessary again to discuss the meaning of these terms or the correctness of the decision in Rajaram v. Narasingha (1891) I.L.R. 15 Mad. 199 be. cause it has been abundantly established in later cases that, even if literal effect is not to be given to these words so as to involve as a necessary inference a permanent tenancy yet the surrounding circumstances may be looked at and a permanent tenancy may be inferred from the use of these words, In the present case, we find that the lease in the suit was a renewal of previous documents, and that, previously to the execution of this instrument, the lessees had been held to hold on a permanent tenure in the suit of 1819. That consideration in our opinion is sufficient to show that it was intended to confer a permanent tenure in favour of the lessees by virtue of Exhibit J in this case. Therefore on that ground, we agree with the learned Subordinate Judge.