JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This appeal is by the 2nd plaintiff in a suit for michavaram and other dues under two 'Uzhavu Pattom' deeds, Exts. A and B. Ext. A is executed by Chacko Cheriyathu and Ext. B by Mani Mathew, in Mithunam 1052. The defendants are the successors-in-interest of those tenants. There is also a prayer for renewal fees, or recovery of possession in the alternative. The defendants contended that though Exts. A and B have been executed by the above said tenants Chacko Cheriyathu and Mani Mathew, they never held the properties under those demises, that the plaintiffs' illom had no title to the suit properties and even if they had any title they have lost the same by long adverse possession of the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest. The Munsif dismissed the suit. The Additional District Judge, on appeal by the 2nd plaintiff, found the title of the plaintiffs established, that the registration of the land taken in the name of the defendants' predecessors enured to the landlord, the plaintiffs' illom, but held that the defendants and their predecessors were in adverse possession of the property when they disclaimed their tenancy under the plaintiffs' illom, before the settlement authorities and therefore the plaintiffs' illom lost their title to the suit property and dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this second appeal by the 2nd plaintiff who is the assignee of the original 1st plaintiff. 2. The courts below have entered concurrent finding that the demises under Exts. A and B did not come to effect. It is not disputed that these documents were executed by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants. Exts. A and B show that the demisees thereunder were already in possession of the property under the plaintiffs' illom when they executed those deeds. Credit was also given for the amount advanced under the prior demises towards the considerations under Exts. A and B. Further, those documents have been presented for registration by the demisees themselves. It is then ununderstandable what the courts below meant by saying that the documents did not take effect. There is no case that the demisees ever lost their possession in respect of the properties involved in Exts. A and B. Further, those documents have been presented for registration by the demisees themselves. It is then ununderstandable what the courts below meant by saying that the documents did not take effect. There is no case that the demisees ever lost their possession in respect of the properties involved in Exts. A and B. If tenants in possession of the property make a renewal of their tenancy by documents executed by them and got registered by them, nothing further is required to show that the documents were acted upon. The subsequent possession of the holdings can only be under the demises executed in renewal by the tenants. The finding entered by the courts below that the plaintiff has not proved that the demises under Exts. A and B took effect is unwarranted and perverse. I hold that Exts. A and B took effect and subsequent possession of the properties by the demisees under Exts. A and B was only under those documents. 3. Ext. XII is a copy of the proceedings in a settlement enquiry proved and relied on by the defendants in this case. It shows that Mani Mathew made a statement before the settlement authorities on 14-3-1076 that he has accepted a demise of the land as per Ext. B from the plaintiffs' illom, but that acceptance was made on the representation made to him by the landlord that the land was his registered holding, and that since the land was ascertained by the authorities to be poramboke land the same may be registered in his name. Ext. XII shows that he had produced Ext. B before the authorities. It is from the date of this statement that the Subordinate Judge held the tenant's possession to be adverse to the landlord. There is nothing on record to show that the landlord was a party to these proceedings, nor to show that he was aware of the above statement. The Additional District Judge himself found: "Thus there is no positive and reliable evidence to show that the illom was a party to the settlement proceedings regarding plaint items." The question then is whether the subsequent possession of the demisees under Exts. A and B or their successors would be adverse to the plaintiffs' illom. The Additional District Judge himself found: "Thus there is no positive and reliable evidence to show that the illom was a party to the settlement proceedings regarding plaint items." The question then is whether the subsequent possession of the demisees under Exts. A and B or their successors would be adverse to the plaintiffs' illom. The proposition is well settled that a tenant cannot by any unilateral act on his part alter the character of his possession of the holding. I need only quote Rustomji on Limitation, where the learned author deals with this matter at pages 753-756 of the 6th Edn. of his treatise, "In the case of a monthly tenant or a tenant from year to year something more than a mere assertion of adversity would be required to determine the tenancy. Such an asertion merely gives the landlord the option to evict the tenant, and the tenant must still prove some act on the part of the landlord indicating that the tenancy has been determined before he can claim that his possession was not that of a tenant but was adverse ........ The Privy Council have subsequently re-affirmed their decision in 45 All. 419, and have held that a person who is in fact in possession as a tenant cannot, by continuing in possession under an open claim to hold the lands as an under-proprietor, acquire by prescription a title as an under-proprietor, however long such assertion of an under proprietory right may have been repeated and persisted in ............ A person who has lawfully come into possession as tenant from year to year or a term of years cannot by setting up, however notoriously, during the continuance of such relation, any title adverse to that of the landlord inconsistent with the legal relation between them, acquire, by limitation, title as owner or any other title inconsistent with that under which he was let into possession." Several decisions have been cited by the learned author in support of the above propositions. 4. Ext. XII only shows that the demisee under Ext. B has made a claim before the settlement authorities to register the land in his name. His statement and production of Ext. B clearly show that he was in possession of land then under that demise only. 4. Ext. XII only shows that the demisee under Ext. B has made a claim before the settlement authorities to register the land in his name. His statement and production of Ext. B clearly show that he was in possession of land then under that demise only. As the land was declared to be unregistered Puthuval by the settlement authorities he found an occasion to utilise that declaration in his favour, get the registry in his name, and thereby gain proprietorship over the land. Unless the tenant is able to show that such registration was made in open contest with the landlord, or at least with notice to the landlord, such registration will enure to the benefit of the landlord, as an advantage gained by virtue of his possession as a tenant of the landlord. Section 90 of the Trusts Act provides: "90. Where a tenant for life, coowner, mortgagee or other qualified owner of any property, by availing himself of his position as such, gains an advantage in derogation of the rights of the other persons interested in the property, or where any such owner, as representing all persons interested in such property, gains any advantage, he must hold, for the benefit of all persons so interested, the advantage so gained, but subject to re-payment of such persons of their due share of the expenses properly incurred, and to an indemnity by the same persons against liabilities properly contracted, in gaining such advantage". Construing this provision it has been held in Parmeshwar v. Ramrudra Prasad (AIR 1935 Patna 360): "A lessee is a qualified owner of the property inasmuch as he exercises the power of the landlord during the continuance of his lease ........ and therefore if he gains any advantage in derogation of the interest of the superior landlord he holds that advantage for the benefit of the latter". As the registration in favour of the defendants was an advantage gained by virtue of their possession under the demise of tenancy, the advantage must necessarily be held in trust for the landlord. There is no evidence that the tenancy that was commenced under Exts. A and B was ever terminated between the parties. It then follows that the status of the defendants in respect of the suit property is . only that of tenants or kudiyans so far as their relation with the plaintiffs' illom is concerned. 5. There is no evidence that the tenancy that was commenced under Exts. A and B was ever terminated between the parties. It then follows that the status of the defendants in respect of the suit property is . only that of tenants or kudiyans so far as their relation with the plaintiffs' illom is concerned. 5. Counsel for the defendants had a contention that the suit property was not included in Exts. A and B. Mani Mathew who executed Ext. B deed produced the same before the settlement authorities in Ext. XII proceedings and deposed that the document related to the land involved in those proceedings. Ext. XII makes clear that it related to Survey No. 706/IB, 84 acres and 81 cents in extent. It is then clear that the land bearing S. No. 706/IB was included in the demise under Ext. B. Though the statement in Ext. XII, as also the recitals in Exts. A and B, would indicate that other lands were also the subject of the demise under Exts. A and B there is no proof in this case to identify the same. Counsel for the plaintiffs, when confronted with the absence of such evidence to identify the other properties, submitted that the piece of land bearing S. No. 706/IB which has been clearly proved to have been in the demise Ext. B may be found so in this case. As this is made out unambiguously by Mani Mathew himself before the settlement authorities in Ext. XII, a record produced and relied upon by the defendants, I find that the piece of land bearing S. No. 706/IB was covered by the demise under Ext. B. It then follows that the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to michavaram in respect of this piece of land. 6. It is admitted by counsel on both sides that the defendants are in separate possession of specific parcels of land. It would then be fair that each defendant be made liable only for the michavaram due in respect of their holding. 7. This decision will therefore be taken as a preliminary decree in the case and the quantum of michavaram and other jenmi's dues payable by each defendant will be fixed by the court below in a final judgment to be passed in this case. 8. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their respective costs throughout.