The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Trusts Act and the Limitation Act in determining the validity of the settlement and gift deed, as well as the influence exercised over the late Rajah.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff appellant is the present Rajah of Ramnad, the owner of an ancient Zamin-dary. He brought this suit to recover possession with mesne profits for 3 years before suit of the village of Nedunthulasi within the area of hisZamindari which village had been alienated in three ways in the years 1894 1895, and 1902 respectively in favour of the 1st defendant (Kuppuswami Aiyar alias Naganatha Aiyar). Unless all these three transactions are set aside or are nullities it seems prima facie difficult to see how the plaintiffs suit in ejectment and for possession could succeed as each of the three transactions gives to the 1st defendant the right to hold possession of the village on the date of this suit, namely, 30-6-1913.

2. The first transaction was the lease granted by the plaintiffs father, the then Rajah, in September 1894 under Ex. C. Under this deed, the 1st defendant was entitled to enjoy the village as lessee for 40 years till the 1st July 1934, that is, till more than 21 years from the date when this suit was brought and more than thirteen years from the date on which this judgment is pronounced by me.

3. The second transaction was again an alienation by the plaintiffs father in June 1895 under Ex. I by which the village was gifted outright to the 1st defendant with full powers of gift, sale, etc.

4. The. third transaction was an agreement between one Rao Bahadur Venkatarengier (who was constituted the present plaintiff) trustee under a settlement deed of July 1895 which I shall refer to again later on) on the, one side and the 1st defendant on the other side and was made in April 1902. (Besides the Dewan Trustee and the 1st defendant, two Nattukottai Chetties, who were the lessees of the whole zamindari were also parties to the agreement, but it is unnecessary to refer to them further). That agreement is Ex. II. The trustee had threatened the 1st defendant with a suit to set aside the gift deed, (Ex. I, June 1895). Thereupon, the dispute was settled by this agreement, Ex. II, the 1st defendant agreeing to hold the village on perpetual lease at half theusual rent and thus altering the giif under Ex. I (the gift deed of 1895,) with full ownership right in the village to the gift of a perpetual and heritable and transferable occupancy right on favourable rent.

5. Now the pLalnt ignores altogether the first transaction, namely, the 40 years iease of 1894, attacks the other two transactions as "not bona fide" as "fraudulently and dishonestly obtained", as due to "undue influence" and in several other ways.

6. The defendants (the defendants 2 and 3 being the sons of the 1st defendant, raised several pleas and the lower court framed nineteen issues for disposal. It is curious that no specific issue was raised in respect of the defendants right to hold the village under the 40 years lease of 1894 and the liability of the plaintiffs suit filed in 1913 for possession to be dismissed on that short ground even though the 1st defendant specifically mentioned the 40 years, lease and relied upon it also in the 7th and 8th paragraphs of his written statement.

7. A few more facts and dates may be here mentioned. The late Rajah was born in 1868 and his father died when he was a boy of 4 or 5. Though he was only a titular Rajah and was for all practical purposes only the owner of an Impartible Zamindary Estate, the pomps and ceremonies and the retinue of a Royal Court were kept up in many ways in the Zemindars residence and the unwholesome atmosphere of hangers-on, favourites, flatterers, idlers, the Zenana, etc, affected the zamindars residence (known, of course, as the Palace) and his surroundings and the effects of such influence were too strong on the young man, (the plaintiffs father) notwithstanding that his estate was taken up by the Court of Wards during his minority and his education was conducted in Madras. His mother (the dowager Rani) had naturally great influence over him. She arranged to have him m