1. I reserved judgment in this ease not on account of any point of law which required further consideration, for upon the facts found the second appeal must fail; but because the case seemed to me at the hearing to be a typical instance of a class of eases which are too common in Malabar in which an ordinary suit between landlord and tenant valued at a few rupees, is allowed to be converted into a suit in which the title to extensive properties is determined. On further examination I find that the present is a remarkable case of that nature. The value of the suit was Rs. 20 and the stamp duty paid Rs. 1-8-0. The first plaintiff instituted the suit in 1888 to recover, with arrears of rent from 1882, a paramba leased by first plaintiff's deceased brother in February 1874 under a registered pattam chit to the first and eighth defendants. These, viz., first plaintiff and first and eighth defendants, were the only necessary parties to the suit, but for some reason or other the sons and grandsons of defendants Nos. 1 and 8 were also made parties with the usual result. The lessees did not appear, but their sons and grandsons did, and they denied the letting and plaintiff's right to the paramba, and claimed the property as their own. It appears, however (vide paragraph 18 of Munsif's judgment), that subsequently these defendants were got at by the eleventh defendant, and at his instigation they put in a petition stating that they held under him, but carefully omitted to specify under what right' they held. The first plaintiff proved the letting sued upon, and the District Munsif granted him a decree. The Appellate Court, however, remanded the suit with directions to make the jenmi under whom plaintiff held on saswathom tenure and the jenm set up by the lessees' sons and grandsons parties and to try the question of title. This was done, and, after a protracted litigation, the plaintiff's title has been declared. I cannot imagine a more monstrous case. A question of title to property of very considerable value has been decided in a suit by a lessor against a lessoe under a registered deed, the execution of which was not denied by the lessees, and which was proved beyond all doubt by the lessor. The sons and grandsons of the lessees were improperly made parties in the first instance, and still more improperly were allowed to change their defence in the course of the suit, and to set up a person who is now shown to have no sort of right, and whose lease-deed is found to be a forgery. The suit is one of 1888. It has occupied the time and attention of three Courts and has been pending for four years. The eleventh defendant has been allowed to obtain a decision as to his title at a cost of eight annas or so, and the stamp revenue has been ruthlessly defrauded. The case ought not to have been converted from a suit of one character into a suit of an entirely different character. The son's and grandsons and their spurious landlord should have been referred to a separate suit for a decision of the question of title. It is nothing less than a scandal that cases should be tried in the manner in which this has been.
2. Both Courts have found that the lease sued on was granted, that the land is held under it, that second plaintiff under whom first plaintiff holds on saswathom right is the jenmi, and that the marupattam on which appellant relies is a recent fabrication. There are no. grounds for this second appeal, which is dismissed with costs.
Muttusami Ayyar, J.
3. I am also of opinion that upon the facts found the decision of the Judge is right, and that thersse are no grounds for interference in second appeal.