The main legal point established is that the defendant's possession was not wrongful, leading to the cancellation of the decree for mesne profits. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of compensation for improvements based on the terms of the lease agreement.

1. The defendant, in a suit for recovery of property with arrears of rent, is the appellant. The property belonged to the 1st plaintiff. It was leased out to the defendant as per Ext. A dated 1-11-1116 for an annual rent of Rs. 61/-. The lease deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff's husband and mukthiar holder, Pw.1, on behalf of the 1st plaintiff. It contained a provision that the defendant may put up any building that may be found necessary for his purposes, over and above the shed that existed on the date of the lease, and that if any such building was put up, the defendant would remove the same and surrender the property and the building that were let to him without any objection at the termination of the lease. Ext. A was for a term of one year but it contained a provision for renewal for another two years. According to the plaintiffs, after the expiry of three years from the date of Ext. A the term of the lease was extended by another six months and therefore the lease terminated on 30-4-1120. According to the defendant, on the expiry of three years from the date of Ext. A the term was renewed for another term, of three years. The only documentary evidence in connection with the renewal of the lease after 30-10-1119 is Ext.1 which is a receipt, dated 7-11-1119 executed by the 1st plaintiff's husband, Pw.1, wherein he acknowledged receipt of Rs. 75/- "being the rent due to me for the first instalment from Ani 1st, 1119, up to the end of Vrischikam 1120 for the premises and. buildings....". It is agreed by both parties that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 150/- per annum at the time of the renewal of the lease in 1119. The expression in Ext. I that Rs. 75/- represent the first instalment of rent due from 1-11-1119 would clearly show that the term of the renewal could not be six months only for which the rent of Rs. 75/- was paid under Ext. I; but must certainly be a longer period. There is no reliable proof as to the exact term for which the lease was extended in Ani 1119. Anyhow, one thing is clear, that is, that the term of such renewal could not be less than an year dating from 1-11-1119.

2. On 8-3-1120, the 1st plaintiff sold the property to the 2nd plaintiff as per Ext. IX in which it was averred that the property was outstanding on lease with the defendant and its term would expire by the end of Vrischikam 1120. On the basis of the sale deed, plaintiffs 1 and 2 instituted the suit on 2-7-1120 for recovery of the property with enhanced rent at Rs. 250/- per mensem from 1-5-1120. The learned Munsiff gave a decree to the plaintiffs for recovery of the property "with arrears of rent by way of damages at Rs. 900/- per annum from 1-5-1120." He negatived the defendant's claim for compensation for improvements on the ground that the provision in Ext. A amounted to a prohibition of any such claim. The learned District Judge, on appeal by the defendant, affirmed the decree of the trial court, holding that the defendant is not entitled to any value of improvements as per the terms of Ext. A, that the defendant's possession from 1-5-1120 was clearly wrongful and that therefore he was liable for mesne profits by way of damages which he assessed at Rs. 75/- per mensem as found by the trial Court. Hence this Second Appeal by the defendant.

3. It is stated at the Bar by both sides that the defendant has surrendered possession of the property and building in about 1125 and this Second Appeal relates only to the mesne profits awarded against the defendant and the compensation for improvements claimed by him.

4. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of, the appeal was raised by Shri V. Parameswara Menon, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the ground that the 8th respondent, who is one of the heirs of the deceased 2nd plaintiff, died in the course of this appeal and nobody having been impleaded as her legal representatives the appeal abated as a whole. He relied on Pyli v. Verghese