1. It is argued that there was a forfeiture by reason* of the respondent's denial of title in their written statement. It is true that the defendants including the. respondents all questioned the title of the plaintiff, but it does not appear that the denial so far as regards the respondents was made under circumstances such as to render their conduct fraudulent. The question is, whether the plaintiff or the judgment-debtors have derived a valid title from the same jenmi. And when the plaintiff sought to raise the attachment which had been levied on the land, he did not appear to support his petition or produce his title-deed. The case is similar to that of a tenant who, his lessor having died, bona fide, denies the claim of one of two rival claimants to the inheritance.
2. We agree with the District judge that there was no forfeiture. As to the other point turning on the construction of Exhibits III and IV, we see no reason to differ from the judge. There is nothing in the documents to show that the intention was to create a redeemable tenure. The words are that the land was given in consideration of a money payment to be enjoyed as Vaga, subject to the payment of one thuni of rice and the presentation of a bow and lance on the occasion 'of the Puram festival. It is clear that the allusion to the bow and lance does not indicate any real service or anything more than a mere sign of homage. The evidence does not 'show that from 1821 the tenure has been treated as redeemable (in S.A. 819 of 1881 and cases there cited.)
3. We see no ground for saying that the courts below have not come to a correct conclusion as to the nature of the tenure.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.