The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the implied covenant of title and quiet enjoyment under S.55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, and the limitations of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The judgment also clarifies the rights and duties of a mortgagor in possession under S.66 of the T. P. Act.

1. To decide the two questions raised by the Ist defendant-appellant, it is unnecessary to state the facts of the case in detail. The bare facts necessary for the appeal are as follows:

2. The 2nd defendant entered into an agreement with the deceased Ist plaintiff for the purchase of 1103.86 acres of private forest in South Wynad Taluk known as the Valiya Para Estate, The agreement provided for the sale of the land to the 2nd defendant or his nominees. The Ist defendant as per Ext. Al sale deed dated 6-7-1968 purchased 490.98 acres of land from the plaintiff as advised by the 2nd defendant for a price fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- towards which a sum of Rs 38,000/- was paid on the date of sale and the balance Rs. 62,000- was to be paid within six months thereafter. The Ist defendant was put in possession of the land on the date of Ext. Al itself. The period of six months fixed in Ext. Al for payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 62,000/-expired on 6-1-1969. The plaintiff issued Ext. A2 notice dated 6-3-1969 to the Ist defendant demanding payment of the balance consideration and requiring the Ist defendant to desist from cutting and removing trees in the land sold before the balance consideration is paid. There was no reply to Ext. A2 notice and a suit was filed on 21-11-1969, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 62,000/-with interest from the date of sale. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and the 2nd plaintiff is brought on record as his legal representative.

3. Various contentions were raised by the 1st defendant in defence to the suit. For the purpose of this appeal it is necessary to advert only to the following contentions.

4. The 1st defendant had shortly after Ext.Al applied to the Collector of the District for a clear-felling permit under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, with a view to clearfell the land and convert it into a cardamom and coffee plantation. The plaintiff opposed the application as per his statement of objections a copy of which is produced as Ext. A6. Shortly afterwards the present suit was filed and the plaintiff obtained an order of temporary injunction in I.A. No. 3201 of 1969 against the 1st defendant from cutting trees from the land sold under Ext. Al. For the reason of the plaintiffs' objection the 1st defendant could not cut and remove the trees and convert the land into a plantation. The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act came into force on 10-5-1971, and the entire land has vested in the Government free of all encumbrances. The sale deed Ext. Al was without the requisite permission of the Collector under S.3 of the M.P.P.F. Act. It is therefore void and no relief can be claimed on the basis of the void document. The plaintiff in preventing the 1st defendant from cutting and removing the trees by raising objections before the Collector and obtaining as order of temporary injunction from the court below has violated the covenant for quiet enjoyment under S.35(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. It was for the reason of the plaintiff's objection that the land could not be clear-felled and converted into a plantation. It remained as a private forest and ultimately vested in Government on 10-5-1971 free of all encumbrances. The plaintiff is therefore precluded from claiming the balance consideration due under Ext. Al. The 1st defendant is in the position of a mortgagor in possession for the reason of the charge under S.55(4) of the Transfer of Property Act and as mortgagor he is entitled to cut and remove the standing timber by virtue of the provisions contained in S.66 of the Act.

5. The court below overruled all these contentions raised on behalf of the 1st defendant and decreed the suit for recovery of the balance consideration of Rs. 62,000/- with interest from the date of Ext. Al.

6. The court below on the evidence adduced in the case found that the transaction Ext. Al was after obtaining the requisite sanction of the Collector under S.3 of the