The central legal point established in the judgment is the Court's authority to grant relief based on an admitted case, even if the specific case alleged by the plaintiff is not proved. The judgment also underscores the duty of the courts to ensure a correct and complete reference to all relevant evidence in their judgments.

1. The plaintiff has presented this Second Appeal against that part of the appellate decree of the District Judge of Nagercoil in A.S. No. 487 of 1120 making the decree for surrender of two buildings granted to him by the Munsiff conditional on his paying their value to the 1st defendant, which the Munsiff was directed to ascertain and remanding the case for that purpose. There is memorandum of cross-objections filed by the 1st respondent (1st defendant) stating that the suit should have been dismissed as the lease on which the suit was based has not been proved. The other respondents (defendants) do not appear. The suit as originally filed in the year 1110 was for recovery of arrears of rent on foot of an alleged oral lease of two shop-buildings situated in a busy part of the Nagercoil town. That lease arrangement was one alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in Medom 1105. Two other persons were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 as the persons in possession of the buildings. Another person was subsequently added as the 4th defendant also for the same reason.

2. The 1st defendant denied the lease, and set up an arrangement of lease between himself and one Sanjeevi Ammal who was the lessor to the plaintiff of the site of these and other buildings. Against the decree passed in the plaintiffs favour, the first defendant appealed before the District Judge, Nagercoil (A. S. No. 140/1114) who reversed the decision and remanded the case for fresh disposal to the Munsiff. After remand, the plaintiff amended the suit as one for recovery of possession of the said buildings which formed the subject matter of the lease. The 1st defendant filed a fresh written statement to this amended plaint.

3. There were 7 issues framed by the Munsiff before remand and an equal number thereafter. Issue 8 is as follows:

"(8). Is the plaint lease true?"

4. Learned counsel for both sides at the commencement of the argument in this court agreed in complementing the Munsiff and also the judge upon the elaborate and efficient manner in which both of them marshalled the materials and the evidence in the case, though they reached different conclusions. The findings being divergent, according to the procedure prevalent here, this Court has to consider the facts and record a finding afresh. Being under that responsibility, I thought it proper to defer my compliments to the courts below until after my consideration of the facts and evidence in the case. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore took me in detail through the mass of oral and documentary evidence that has been adduced in the case with the result that the hearing took several hours spread over two days and this day which normally would have taken not more than an hour. The result of my investigation of the matter is a discovery that the learned Munsiff did not record a finding on issue 8 on which depended the success or failure of the parties. This appears to have been a case in which having gone at a tangent the centre was forgotten which was never reached.

5. The main controversy between the parties is this: Sanjeevi Ammal who is the widow of one Aseervatham had two children born of him. Aseervatham appears to have been entitled with his brother to a plot of land measuring 74 cents and bearing Survey No. 1382/369. As a result of an arrangement of partition between the said brother of Aseervatham and his widow and children, 22 cents out of the said extent was allotted to the brother and the remaining 52 cents became vested in Sanjeevi Ammal and her children. The parties belong to the Christian community. The plaintiff's case is that Sangeevi Ammal gave a lease of the said 52 cents to him in 1098 when the children were minors, that he continued to be the lessee thereunder and that lease was renewed on 19-9-1104, under Ex. D for a period of 6 years from that date. His case further is that after the date of Ex. D, he put up 4 shop buildings in the premis