Ukkandath v. Puliyakot Kunhi Kuttan

1. We do not express any opinion on the question whether the lower Courts were right in their view that Exs. A and 13 do not recognize an irredeemable hereditary anubhavam tenure in the plaint lands themselves as vesting in defendant 1.

2. Assuming that the lower Courts were wrong in that view and that defendant 1 had an anubhavam tenure in the lands, his alienation of the lands to defendant 2 in 1909 under Ex. 7 put an end to that anubhavam tenure: see Moore's Malabar Law, p. 308, and Theyyan Nair v. Zamorin of Calicut(1), as the right to enjoy was given only to defendant 1 and his heirs and as soon as they ceased to enjoy the lands, the right of enjoyment reverted to the grantor even without any express clause in the grant providing for reentry.

3. The case of Achutha Menn v. Sankaran Nair(2) no doubt related to karankari tenure, but the reasoning by which it was held that on alienation by the tenant holding under such a tenure the land reverted to the landlord even without an express clause giving the latter a right of re-entry, applies also to anubhavam tenures.

4. For the above reasons, we dismiss this second appeal with costs.

S.N/R.K

5. Appeal dismissed.