JUDGMENT. — Defendants 1, 3, 6, 13 and 18 are the appellants in this second appeal, which arises out of a suit for redemption instituted by one Sundararaja Iyengar, the first respondent herein, and one Soundaralakshmi, who figured as the first plaintiff in the suit and on whose death, the first respondent herein was recorded as her legal representative.

2. The only question that had been seriously raised and strenuously contended before the Courts below has lost much of its substance in view of two judgments of this Court, to which I shall refer a little later. The point in controversy is whether the application of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1963 will have any effect on the tion of the property in question. It is common ground that under Exhibits A-1 to A-5 the kudiwaram in the properties was othied by the inamdar which is sought to be redeemed. It was contended by the appellants that the right of redemption was lost because under the vesting section, the inamdar had lost his right, and consequently could not maintain a suit for redemption. This had been negatived by the Courts below and hence the second appeal.

3. I may point out that this question no longer surviv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document