Varadachariar, J.

1. This case has been posted before this Bench in consequence of a contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the Full Bench In Vedapuratti v. Vallabha Valiya Raja (1902) 25 Mad 300 should not be followed after the decision of the Privy Council in Raghunath Singh v. Hansraj Kunwar. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a jenmi for redemption of properties in the possession of the Kanomdar. Various objections were raised, of which it is necessary to refer only to those raised by issues 1 and 3.

2. Issue 3 was framed with reference to what happened in O.S. No. 670 of 1923 on the file of the Ponani Munsifs Court. That suit was instituted by the assignee of a melcharthdar, who is defendant 17 in the present suit. A decree for possession was passed in that suit conditional on payment of a certain sum of money for compensation for the improvements effected by the tenant. The decree-holder, however, did not care to deposit the amount and take possession. Some months after the date of the decree, he sent a registered notice to the jenmi, which has been marked Ex. 6 in the present case, wherein he stated that the suit had been in