KARTHIAYINI Vs. VALLIAPOTTI AMMA RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the 18th defendant from whom items 2, 3 and 5 in the schedule to the decree were taken and delivered over to the respondent decree holder. At the time of delivery, there were certain crops on the lands which were raised by the appellant. In item No. 2, the appellant had only ploughed for the purpose of cultivation. In item No. 3 the appellant had raised a sugarcane crop and in item No. 5, a tapioca crop. The appellants claim for getting the costs of these crops was disallowed by the court below on the ground that R. 290 of the Civil Courts Guide stood in the way of the grant of the cost thereof.

(2.) The language of R. 290 is not so intractable as to compel the court to disallow the cost of the work and the crops raised by the appellant whose benefit the decree holder got by taking delivery of the land with the crops. R. 290 does not prohibit grant of the value of crops raised in cases where the crops are not paddy crops. The provision of the rule for valuing the crop at so many paras, lends colour to the contention that it is only for paddy crops that compensation can be given. The rule however starts by providing for costs where delivery of possession of paddy land is given and there are crops therein without referring to the crops as paddy crops.

(3.) Apart from that rule, we consider that it is only equitable and in accordance with practice, that a decree holder taking possession of properties (on which the judgment debtor or other party in possession has raised, in the ordinary course, some crops or done some work for cultivation whose advantage the decree holder gets) should be directed or made liable to pay the cost of the crops and the work.