In this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the primary question which arises for consideration is whether there has been a forfeiture of the mulgeni lease evidenced by Ex. P-1, by reason of alienations made by the mulgeni tenant, who is now the first defendant, of the tenancy. By Ex. P-7 she transferred her mulgeni rights in some of the properties, and by Ex. D-1 she transferred her right in the remainder of the properties, with the result that the mulgeni right has now been wholly alienated. Both the lower Courts have held that as the alienation under each deed of transfer was only of a part, no forfeiture has been incurred. The clause against alienation and providing for re-entry is set out at length in paragraph 24 of the District Munsiff’s judgment.

In Chatterton v. Terrell1 which was on appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Terrell v. Chatterton2 (which in turn reversed the decision of Astbury, J.) one of the learned Law Lords expressed himself thus:

“My Lords, but for the fact that Astbury, J., found a defence to this action, I should have thought the case unarguable. I do not know which has given me the greater surprise, the decision of the learne