The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of a lease of the reversion under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the requirement for evidence to establish the lessor's unsound state of mind at the time of execution of the lease.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore awarding a sum of Rs. 12,942-8-3 in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was to recover arrears of rent on the basis of a lease, Ex. B, dated 25th December, 1920, executed by the first defendant in favour of one Seethalakshmi Ammal, the then proprietrix of Kapisthalam estate and the second and third defendants are the undivided father and brother of the first defendant. The said lease was to run for ten faslis commencing from Fasli 1333 to Fasli 1342. The lands comprised in the lease were about 59 acres 37 cents in the village of Sathyamangalam. Subsequent to the execution of this lease, on the 23rd September, 1925, the said Seethalakshmi Ammal gave a lease Ex. A in favour of the plaintiff of the whole of the Sathyamangalam village including the lands which had been leased under the prior lease of 1920. The latter lease was for ten faslis from Fasli 1335 to Fasli 1344 and was to commence from Fasli 1335. The document was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Seethalakshmi Ammal. Not only did it comprise the lands which were the subject-matter of the lease of 1920, it also included lands comprised under three other leases whose terms were outstanding. This lease deed was attested by the first defendant in whose name the lease of 1920 Ex. B had been executed. In and by the terms of the said document Ex. A the plaintiff was authorised to collect the lease paddy and cash rent due from all the lessees mentioned in the said document including the lease of 1920. This suit has been instituted for the recovery of arrears for Faslis 1335 to 1339 payable under Ex. B.

2. Two defences were urged by the defendants in answer to the plaintiffs claim. One was that the plaintiff had no right to sue for the recovery of the arrears of rent in the absence of any assignment executed by Seethalakshmi Ammal in his favour and the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff does not operate as such an assignment. The second defence was that on the date of the execution of the lease in favour of the plaintiff, Seethalakshmi Ammal was not in a sound state of mind; therefore the lease must be deemed to be void and no rights accrued to the plaintiff thereunder. In regard to the first point, the contention of Mr. T.R. Venkatarama Sastriar is that once a lease has been executed for a term and it is outstanding, there can be no lease of the reversion because such a lease would in law amount to a transfer of the rents and profits due and recoverable from the prior lessee and can only be done by an assignment executed by the lessor. It seems to us that this contention is not sound. Under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act (before the amendment) which governs this case, there can be a lease of immovable property by virtue of a registered document executed by the lessee in favour of the lessor--vide Syed Ajam Sahib v. Ananthanarayana Aiyar (1910) 21 M.L.J. 202: I.L.R. 35 Mad. 95 . The subject-matter of the lease must be immovable property and the immovable property may be actual land or may be a reversion upon an existing term. There is nothing, in the Act to preclude the lease of a reversion. Under the English law, it is open to a landlord to create concurrent leases that is, he can execute a lease to-day for a term and to-morrow he can execute another lease for another term to run from the date on which he executed the latter lease. Such a lease has always been held to be valid and in law would operate as an assignment upon the existing term--vide Palmer v. Thorpe (1653) C. E. 152: 78 E.R. 410. There is nothing to preclude the application of this principle to India and it has been adopted by the Indian High Courts vide Manickam Pillai v. Ratnaswamy Nadar (1917)33MLJ684 . Therefore, the question is, would Ex. A be a valid lease according to the Transfer of Property Act? It is conceded that it is. If Ex. A had mentioned simply that a lease of the la