JUDGMENT 1. We are of opinion that Ex. A is a lease as was held with reference to the instrument in Seeni Chettiar v. Santhanatham Chettiar 20 M.k 58 and not a license as was held with reference to the instrument in Maumikkutti v. Puzhakkal Edom 29 M.k 353. 2. The plaintiff was obstructed in the exercise of his lights by the late zamindar, the successor to the zamindar, who granted the lease. The 1st defendant is the representative of the party by whom the plaintiff was obstructed and as such he is liable in damages to the plaintiff to the extent of the assets in his hands. 3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.