Type of ruling can be given by Court.

The defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit was for recovery of possession of the property together with arrears of rent of Rs.1,541 and also for future rent. The trial Court refused the relief for possession but granted a decree for Rs.162-5-4 being arrears of rent for the period from 15th November, 1943 to 23rd February, 1944. On appeal by the plaintiff, this decision was reversed by the learned District Judge and the suit was decreed for possession and also for arrears as prayed for. Provision was also made for future rent at the rate of Rs.50 per mensem from 10th August, 1946, till date of delivery of possession.

The suit was based on tenancy and court-fee was also paid on that basis. The suit property belonged according to the plaintiff to his joint family. One Govindaswami and Velappa Naidu were two brothers. Whether they were divided or undivided is a matter in dispute between the parties. By his first wife, Govindaswami had three sons, Venkataswami who died in 1935, Narayanaswami who died long ago and Ramaswami who died on 12th February, 1943. By his second wife, he had two sons, the plaintiff, Ranganathan and Balakrishnan. Velappa Naidu had no sons, but by his first wife he had two daughters Rangalu Ammal and Rajammal and Rangalu Ammal had three sons. Velappa Naidu also married a second wife Chinuammal. Velappa Naidu died some time in 1919. On 15th March, 1937, under Ex.B-3, Ramaswami who was the then manager of the family and the minor sons of Venkataswami, sold a half share in the house for a sum of Rs.1,000 to Palaniswami his brother-in-law, i.e., sister’s husband. Notwithstanding the sale, Ramaswami seems to have continued in possession either in his own right or partly in his own right and partly as the agent of Palaniswami. On 7th December, 1938, the property was leased to the defendant for a period of five years and Ex. A-1 the rent deed dated 20th May, 1940, was executed between Ramaswami and Guruswami. After the death of Ramaswami on 12th February, 1943, Ranganathan, the present plaintiff, who became the family manager, sued the defendant in Small Cause Suit No.485 of 1943 for rent due for the period between 7th March, 1943 and 7th June, 1943. Ex. A-2 is a copy of that plaint. The suit however did not proceed to trial and was settled on 18th November, 1943 (vide Ex. B-1) by an endorsement made on the plaint that a decree may be passed for a sum of Rs.47-12-0 against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The question of. repairs to the house was left open. In pursuance of this endorsement, a decree followed. Vide Ex. A-2(b). Before the period of five years expired on 22nd November, 1943, the defendant issued through his lawyer a notice Ex. A-3 claiming a certain amount for repair charges and in that he added a note that as he had to vacate the aforesaid building in December and as no other building was available due to war conditions, the period of lease might be extended for another year under the Defence of India Act. To this, Ranganathan sent a reply Ex. A-4 on 6th December, 1943. The lease expired on 7th December, 1943 and there was no assent on the part of Ranganathan to extend the term of the lease. On 7th January, 1944, Palaniswami’s sons, Palaniswami having died by that date, instituted a suit, O.S.No.46 of 1944, against the present defendant who was impleaded as the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff and his brother who were impleaded as defendants 1 and 2, for partition of the house into two halves and for recovery of possession of a ½ share together with profits. In that, it was alleged that, Ramaswami, being the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs and a resident of Coimbatore, and the plaintiffs being residents of Kanur village, Avanashi taluk Ramaswami was allowed to rent the house for the benefit of his brothers, defendants 1 and 2 and also for the benefit of the plaintiffs. The lease to this defendant on 20th May, 1940, is claimed therefore to be on behalf of these and