PARANCHU OUSEPH Vs. PAKKU KUNJ ATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. THE plaintiff's suit was for eviction with past and future rent. THE suit was based on Ext. A executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In that he had undertaken to cultivate the vacant space in the properties scheduled in ext. A and to pay the plaintiff a rent of Rs. 60/ -. Out of this he was to appropriate Rs. 10/- towards fencing and other miscellaneous expenses. THE defendant was allowed to cultivate the vacant space only for one year. THE plaintiff stated that the defendant had no right of possession over the trees and the house in the compound, that he was only to raise vegetable crops and that he was to surrender whatever possession he had after the expiry of one year. THE defendant had not surrendered possession after one year and so the prayer was for recovery of possession of whatever right the plaintiff had over ext. A property and to order payment of past rent and settlement of accounts and future rent at the rate of Rs. 85 a year.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit. He objected to the enhanced rent claimed and contended that he had discharged the whole dues to the plaintiff. He had also a contention that he was not liable to be evicted as he was to be deemed to be a Verumpattomdar mentioned in Act VIII of 1118. THE courts below had concurrently found that he would not come under the category of Verumpattomdar as understood in Act VIII of 1118, that he was liable to surrender the property, that the discharge pleaded was not true, that the plaintiff was not entitled to enhance the rent and that the property could be delivered over to the plaintiff only with past and future rent at the rate provided for in Ext. A.