1. We do not agree with the Judge that, if the clause for forfeiture of the perpetual lease is enforceable, plaintiff is only entitled to a decree on refund of the consideration paid by the tenant at the time of obtaining the lease. Exhibit A contains no provision for such repayment, and an obligation to refund cannot be inferred from the clause for forfeiture.
2. In the case of a kanom referred to by the Judge, what is forfeited is the right to retain possession for the full period of twelve years, the liability to repay the debt being in no way affected. Whereas in the case of a lease the consideration paid for it is exhausted by the grant of the lease, and the tenant's forfeiture of the lease cannot operate to convert the original consideration into a debt.
3. This is the only point that has been argued for appellant, and respondents have not appeared.
4. We, therefore, allow this appeal and setting aside the decrees of the lower Courts so far as they disallow plaintiff's claim to possession of the land, we decree that defendants do surrender the land to plaintiff and pay his costs throughout.