C 312 )
1MB.On July* 7, 1919, Ismail Natchia conveyed 11/12 to the added
E-ImT j parties in the action. The learned Judge found in favour of the
’ defendant, and the plaintiff and the added parties present separate
aPPea^s f,om that judgment.
BUfnda With regard to the plaintiff’s appeal, the. only point argued wasthat the lease to Mohammadu Mohideen was bad, inasmuch asMadana Kanni had not executed it in the manner prescribed by hispower of attorney, but had signed it in his own name, and not in thename of Ismail Natchiu. This contention appears to be good. Thecases on the point were summed up in Evartx v. Chellamma * fromwhich it would seem that there is no particular form of words requiredto be used in signing a document under a power of attorney, providedthat the act was done in the name of the principal. In this case theact was not done in the name of the principal, and the signaturestands alone, and is that of Madana Kanni. There is, however, nooccasion to go into this point in detail, as Mr. Pereira, for the defend-ant, has argued that the defendant is entitled to retain possessionfor the remainder of the term of the lease by right of prescription.This contention appears to be good. The case of Jayawardene a.Silva 2 decided that it was possible to establish title to the servitudeof emphyteusis. On the analogy of that case, the right to hold aland for a period of years would be an interest- in immovable pro-perty for that term; and here the right was founded upon a writtendocument which though not good as a lease from Ismail Natchiacomplies with the Ordinance relating to frauds. The defendanthas had possession for over the prescriptive period, and has therebyacquired a right to remain in possession until the expiration ofthe term for which it- was his intention to hold and exemplified bythe lease. The defendant's leases were continuous, one from theother. So in this case there can be no argument that he has nothad continuous possession for the prescriptive period. The appealof the plaintiff, therefore, fails.
With regard to the appeal of the added parties, that must alsofail on this finding; for they could not be in possession while thefirst defendant was in possession, and they cannot make thedefendants’ possession their own. I would accordingly dismiss bothappeals, with costs.
Schneider J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
»{1918) 21 N. L. R. /.
* (1915) 18 N. L. R. 269.