Elaborate arguments were advanced by Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the appellant/defendant and by Mr. K. Yamunan, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 13. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel would urge that the trial court has decreed the suit without strictly adverting to the two main issues that arose for consideration, viz.,

12. Elaborate arguments were advanced by Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the appellant/defendant and by Mr. K. Yamunan, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

13. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel would urge that the trial court has decreed the suit without strictly adverting to the two main issues that arose for consideration, viz.,

(a) Whether the plaintiffs had proved that the deceased plaintiff had put up construction in the leasehold land and the same was objected to by the defendant unjustly and illegally?

(b) Whether the plaintiffs had proved with acceptable material pleadings and evidence the quantum of damages claimed by them?

14. Insofar as the first issue viz., whether the plaintiffs had proved that the deceased plaintiff had put up construction in the leasehold land and the same was objected to by the defendant unjustly and illegally is concerned, the same is to be examined before rendering a finding that the defendant was guilty of breach of contract and consequently, he was liable to pay damages as contemplated under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel, invited our attention to the recitals in the lease deed Ex. A-1, dated 27.8.1981 whereunder only two items of properties were leased out. Those items are extracted in paragraph 3 supra. Whereas in the plaint schedule, apart from the two items of properties mentioned in Ex. A-1 lease deed, one other item was also found mentioned. The new item mentioned is as follows:

16. The addition of Item No. 2 in the plaint schedule was sought to be justified through Ex. A-16 dated 25.3.1982 captioned as “continued lease deed”, whereas under the said document, no lease sought to be continued. As a matter of fact, Ex. A-1 lease deed was for a period of ten years from 27.8.19 81. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Mr. G. Masilamani, as on 25.3.1982 viz., Ex. A-16, there was no need for any extension of the lease deed Ex. A-1. Further, a reading of the recitals in Ex. A-16 reveals that the same was not one for extension of lease but purport to add Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule in Ex. A-1 lease deed. Therefore, it is contended that Ex. A-16 was in effect seek to create leasehold right in respect of item No. 2 of the plaint schedule also owned by the defendant i n favour of the deceased plaintiff for a period of ten years. As already seen, this document was captioned as “continued lease deed” and sought to be referred to by the deceased plaintiff as a rectification deed to Ex. A-1 lease deed. According to Mr. G. Masilamani, neither of these claims were correct. In reality, it creates a transfer of right in immovable properties which were not covered by Ex. A-1, by way of lease, that too for a period of ten years, strangely for the same rent of Rs. 1,000 per year mentioned in Ex. A-1, de hors the addition 46 Kuzhies and 11 Vizams to the already existing leasehold extent of 1 Kani.