SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA Vs. VOLKART BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an indenture of lease executed on June 6, 1821, and made between the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, of the one part, and one Francis Schuler of the other part, the said United Company demised a piece of land lying between the town of Cochin and the river in the province of Malabar, containing 253,700 square feet (acres 4. 10), unto the said Francis Schuler from the date thereof for the term of ninety-nine years, at the yearly rent of Pagodas 6 F. 27 C. 25. Amongst other covenants the lease contained one in the following terms: That he the said Francis Schuler, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns fulfilling the covenants and agreements hereinbefore contained and on his part to be performed and yielding and paying at the end and expiration of the aforesaid term of ninety nine years into the said United Company, their successors or assigns, the full and just sum of 100 pagodas current money of Fort St. George, then this lease shall and may be renewed for a further term of ninety-nine years upon such terms and conditions as shall be judged reasonable.

(2.) The appellant is the successor in title of the said United Company, and by virtue of an assignments by the said Francis Schuler and diverse subsequent assignments and acts in law the whole of the property comprised in the lease became vested in the respondents in the year 1907. Subsequently, in the year 1914, the respondents as vendors granted to the Cochin Club the right, title and interest of the vendors in a portion of the said lands demised by the said lease, amounting to 3 acres and 34 c., for a sum of Rs. 18,461. The said lease expired by efflux of time on June 6, 1920, and at that date the respondents were in possession of acres 1.10 only of the lands demised, and the Cochin Club having previously surrendered to the appellant their interest, purchased as aforesaid from the respondents, are in occupation of the said 3 acres and 34 c. as tenants at will to the plaintiff.

(3.) On the termination of the said lease the appellant claimed possession from the respondents of the part of the property then remaining in their occupation and containing the 1 acre 10 c. already mentioned, and as such possession was refused commenced his suit on February 24, 1921 claiming possession of the same and mesne profits.