The interpretation of lease agreements, evidence of payments, and the application of the Malabar Tenancy Act were central to the court's decision.

King, J.

1. The jenm right in the property with which we are concerned in this appeal belongs to the Eralpad Raja of Calicut as part of his stanom. In 1913 it was granted on two verumpattom leases to tenants of whom defendants 1 to 8 are the present representatives. These leases are Exs. B and C, the former covering items 1 to 10 and the latter items 11 to 14 of the items in suit. In 1920 by Ex. A the then holder of the stanom granted a melcharth to the plaintiff with powers to evict the Rajas tenants. In 1923 plaintiff sued on this melcharth, and obtained a decree for eviction from the District Munsif of Palghat, which decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam. Plaintiff has accordingly appealed to the High Court.

2. Two reasons were given by the learned Subordinate Judge for his decision and it is those reasons which have now to be considered by us. The first was that the melcharth itself was invalid, the money borrowed under it not having been borrowed for a purpose binding upon the stanom. The second was that the suit was premature. The defendants were entitled under their leases to remain in possession for twelve years, i.e., until 1925 and the suit was brought in 1923. On both these points, it may be mentioned the Subordinate Judges findings differed from those of the District Munsif.

3. The first of these reasons is not seriously sought to be supported by the learned Advocate for the respondents. The facts are that the Raja was in urgent need of money in order to avert the sale of stanom property attached in execution of a decree against the stanom. The Subordinate Judge does not dispute these facts but suggests that various alternative ways of raising money might have been open to the Raja. It is not disputed before us that this finding is based wholly upon surmise without any positive evidence to support it. That being so, we must hold that the melcharth is not invalid.

4. It is the second reason which has been the main point of contention argued before us. The learned advocate for the appellant relies very strongly upon the ruling reported in Gangadharan Pattar v. Patinhara Kovilakath M anavikraman AIR1918Mad453 . This deals with a verumpattom lease, filed in this case as Ex. D executed in favour of the holder of another similar stanom in the Zamori.ns family at Calicut, and couched in somewhat similar though in by no means identical terms with those in the leases now before us. It was there held, following the authority of the Sadar Adawlat Court in 1856, that if a verumpattom lease did not specify the term for which it was to run, it was to be deemed to run for a single year only. It need hardly be mentioned that the present leases (Exs. B and C) specify no term. The argument for the appellant then proceeds on the assumption that in order to prove that their leases were to run for twelve years the respondents must establish the existence of a custom at variance with the ordinary law, and the evidence in this case is far from sufficient to prove any such custom. In our view, however, it is unnecessary to approach the case from this point of view, and it will be enough to consider the evidence relating to these identical items of land. The decision in Gangadharan Pattar v. Patinhara Kovilakath Manavikraman AIR1918Mad453 , seems to us to amount to no more than this, that the presumption in the case of any verumpattom lease is that it runs for one year only and that the burden is upon the lessees to show the contrary.

5. The previous history of these items can be traced back for a generation or so, each of the two leases being in renewal of three previous leases. Those which preceded Ex. B were executed in 1892-1893, 1897-1898 and 1902-1903 and those which preceded Ex. C in 1885-1886, 1893-1894 and 1901-1902. Now at first sight an examination of these dates would seem to negative the respondents contention as the intervals between the successive leases are less than twelve years. But it is well kno