The properties which form the subject-matter of this petition consist of some 2 acres and 91 cents of land in Thiruchendur village. The properties belonged to one Bagirathi Ammal. As she was residing in Madras, she leased the properties to one Venkatarama Aiyar, a nephew of hers, who was residing in the village. Venkatarama Aiyar, in his turn, sub-leased the property to Marudaveera Moopan. On 26th December, 1955, Bagirathi Ammal sold 42 cents of land to Ramaswami Naidu. The same day she sold the remaining extent of 2 acres and 49 cents (besides some other lands with which we are not concerned) to Lakshmana Naidu. On 29th February, 1956, Marudaveera Moopan delivered 30 kalams of paddy to Ramaswami Naidu and obtained from him, the receipt, Exhibit A-1. As the rent due to Lakshmana Naidu was not paid he filed Original Suit No. 462 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif of Kulitalai against Venkatarama Aiyar and Marudaveeran. Then various proceedings followed as a result of which Marudaveera Moopan was deprived of his possession of the suit property. Thereupon he filed a petition before the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Court, Kulitalai, against Lakshmana Naidu and Ramaswami Naidu in which he prayed that he should be restored to possession. The Revenue Court allowed the application. In this revision petition Lakshmana Naidu and Ramaswami Naidu now canvass the correctness of the order, passed by the Deputy Collector.

The first contention of Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar, the learned counsel for the respondent, was that there was a valid agreement of tenancy between Lakshmana Naidu and Ramaswami Naidu who purchased the property from Bagirathi Ammal and Marudaveera Moopan, the sub-lessee from Venkatarama Aiyar. In support of this argument he referred to Exhibit A-1 a receipt which Ramaswami Naidu granted on 29th February, 1956, to Marudaveera Moopan and contended that from its terms, a tenancy agreement between Ramaswami Naidu and Marudaveera Moopan can be spelt out. I am unable to see anything in the receipt to support that contention. It merely acknowledged receipt of a quantity of 30 kalams of paddy from Marudaveera Moopan — and — this is noteworthy-Ramaswami Naidu purported to give the receipt on behalf of Venkatarama Aiyar. This recital seems to me to be inconsistent with the notion that Marudaveera Moopan was a lessee from Ramaswami Naidu. If Ramaswami Naidu had been the lessor he would have granted the receipt in his own name and in his own right. So far as Laksh-mana Naidu is concerned, Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar contended that there are admissions in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the plaint which Lakshmana Naidu filed in Original Suit No. 462 of 1956 which show that Marudaveera Moopan was his lessee. Paragraph 4 of the plaint runs as follows:-

"On 26th December, 1955, the plaintiff bought the following lands from Bagirathi Animal, Nagammal, Venkatarama Aiyar, Sundaram Aiyar and Ramachandra Aiyar, for a sum of Rs. 7,999 ana was given immediate possession of the same. The first defendant was the lessee of lands for fash 1365, and he was in possession at the time of purchase. He was duly attorned by the vendors to pay the rent to the plaintiff and the lessee and the plaintiff agreed thereto."

In paragraph 6 the following sentence occurs:

"The first defendant being obliged to be absent from the village for some time would appear to have sub-let the lands to the second defendant, directing him to carry out the terms of the lease and attorning him to pay the rent to the plaintiff and he and the plaintiff agreed to that."

Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar laid stress on the words "attorned" and "attorning" occurring in these paragraphs and contended that they show that there had been an agreement of tenancy between Lakshmana Naidu and Marudaveera Moopan. Now, reading the plaint as a whole, it appears to me to be clear that whoever drafted the plaint used the words "attorned’ ‘and "attorning" without understanding their legal significance. Appar