The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the compromise agreement of 1902 and the time-barred nature of the suit to set aside the gift under Article 91 of the Limitation Act.

Sadasiva Iyer, J.

1. The plaintiff appellant is the present Rajah of Ramnad, the owner of an ancient Zamindary. He brought this suit to recover possession with mesne profits for 3 years before suit of the village of Nedumthulasi within the area of his Zamindari which village had been alienated in three ways in the years 1894, 1895 and 1902 respectively in favour of the 1st defendant (Kuppusami Iyer alias Naganatha Iyer). Unless all these three transactions are set aside or are nullities it seems prima facie difficult to see how the plaintiffs salt 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, 30th June 1913).

2. The first transaction was a lease granted by the plaintiffs father, the then Rajah, in September 1894 under Exhibit 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 the 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 Exhibit I by which the village was gifted outright to the 1st defendant with fall powers of gift, sale, etc.

4. The third transaction was an agreement between one Rao Bahadur Venkataranga Iyer (who was constituted the present plaintiffs 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 Zemindary were also parties to the agreement, but it is unnecessary to refer to them further). That agreement is Exhibit II, The trustee had threatened the 1st defendant with a suit to set aside the gift deed, (Exhibit I, June 1895). There-upon, the dispute was settled by this agreement, Exhibit II, the 1st defendant agreeing to hold the village on perpetual lease at half the usual rent and thus altering the gift under Exhibit 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 plaint ignores altogether the first transaction, namely, the 40 years lease 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 Nos. 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 ba 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 faots and dates may be here mentioned. The late Raja 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 Zemindary estate, the pomps and ceremonials and the retinue of a Royal Court were kept up in many ways in the Zemindars residence and the unwholesome atmosphere of hangers-on, favorites, flatterers, idlers, the Zenana, etc., affected the Zemindars residence (known, of coarse, 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 wag taken up by the Court of Wards daring his minority and his education was conducted in Madras. His mother (the Dowager Rani) had naturally great influence ove