The appellants case was that the true legal relationship between the parties was that of a lessor and lessee and that the lease itself was number of a permanent character but was one in the nature of annual or yearly lease which was companytinued from year to year.
4,200/ companyresponding to 1848 Pagodas represents the companypensation annually payable to the appellant.
Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated August 28, 1953, of the Madras High Court in A.S. No.
It denied that it held the properties under an annual or yearly lease.
February 15.
That is why the appellant has companye to this Court.
Ganapathy Iyer, V. A. Seyid Muhamad and T. M. Sen, for the respondent No.
Respondent 1 disputed this claim.,
On these pleadings the trial companyrt framed ten issues.
According to the trial companyrt the arrangement evidenced by the said documents was a permanent arrangement and that being so, the appellant was number entitled to claim possession.
Respondent 1 made certain other pleas on the merits Of and urged a bar of limitation.
4,200/ per annum.
On these findings the trial companyrt dismissed the appellants suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.371 of 1956.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal has been brought with a certificate issued by the Madras High Court and it arises out of a suit filed by the Managing Trustee of the appellant Sri Vedaraneeswararswamy Devasthanam against respondents 1 and 2 the Dominion of India and the Province of Madras respectively.
In 1806 an agreement was reached between the East India Company and the appellant, under which the Company took possession of the appellants properties in suit and in return promised to pay a sum of 1848 Pagodas annually.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Sundaralingam and B. K. B. Naidu, for the appellant.
From the time of the said grant the appellant was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said properties, and its trustees and managers used to look after them and companylect their profits for the use and benefit of the appellant.
On the principal point of dispute between the parties it held that a reading of the relevant documents clearly showed that at the time when the Company took possession whatever the idea may then have been it must have been only to take over the properties permanently from the plaintiff Devasthanam and number to place themselves at the mercy of the trustees who might evict them at any time.
Thereafter respondent 1 took over the salt revenue administration and as such the properties came into its possession.
In that year respondent 2 which succeeded the Company entered into possession of the property on the same terms and was making the annual payment of the said sum until 1937.
Respondent 1 has been paying the appellant the agreed amount from year to year.
It is on this basis that the appellant made the two alternative claims specified above.
The properties came under the possession and companytrol of the Company as a result of the proceedings taken under Regulation 1 of 1805 and the amount of Rs.
In this suit the appellant claimed a declaration that the properties in suit belong to the appellant and asked for a direction against respondent 1 to put the appellant in possession of the same.
Pursuant to this agreement the Company took possession of the said property and was paying the agreed rent until 1858.
This claim has been rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayuram who tried the case and an appeal preferred by the appellant against the trial companyrts decision has likewise failed.
A further direction was claimed against the said respondent calling upon it to account for and pay to the appellant mesne profits past and future and an alternative plea was also made by which the companyrt was requested to determine the proper rent payable by the said respondent to the appellant.
Its case was that when the suit lands, were taken over by the Company companypensation was fixed once for all, the average income of the appellant from the manufacture of salt carried on by the appellant during the previous ten years having been taken as the basis for the purpose of calculating the said companypensation.
262 of 1949.
