Madras High Court
Narasimma Chetti vs Surianarayana Aiyar And Anr. on 20 July, 1892
Equivalent citations: (1892)IIMLJ153
JUDGMENT
1. It is next contended that the judge is in error in holding that plaintiff's perpetual lease is not binding on the purchaser in that it was granted for a sum below the faisal assessment and the proportional revenue payable on it.
2. A perpetual, lease is in our opinion an encumbrance within the meaning of Act II of 1864. It creates an under-tenure which diminishes the value of the estate.
3. As for the contention that the permanent lease in question fell under Section 82 of the Act, as there was no declaration by the Collector of its being valid, it must be upheld. We are of opinion that the absence of the declaration by the Collector is immaterial and will not preclude the purchaser from avoiding it on the ground, of its being an encumbrance under Section 42. We are of opinion therefore that the decree of the judge must be upheld for the reasons stated above. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.