DEVAKI Vs. BHASKARA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is by the defendant in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and recovery of possession of property with arrears of purapad. Defendants 3 to 5 had a contention that the transaction on the basis of which recovery of possession was sought was a kanam as defined in the Malabar Tenancy Act, 14 of 1930, and additional issue No. 10 was in these terms.

(2.) The transaction in question is evidenced by a Kaivasampanaya deed (RRWvwkepLiLqU) executed on 22-1-1898 by the plaintiffs ancestor in favour of Cheeramma, mother of defendants 1 and 2, for a sum of Rs. 300/- and a panaya kychit (Ext. A-1) executed by the latter on the same date. Cheeramma was to appropriate Rs. 18/- towards interest on Rs. 300/-, adjust Rs. 4-7-7 towards revenue and Rs. 20-8-5 for putting up fences and thatching the building etc. and out of the surplus of profits she was to pay Rs. 32/- as purapad and Re. 1/- as the cost of two bunches of plantains. Interest on arrears of purapad or tax was also provided for and it was also stipulated that Cheerammas rights could be sold for realisation of such arrears. The term was fixed as one year. The question is whether this transaction is a kanam as defined in the Malabar Tenancy Act.

(3.) Both sides referred to decisions of this court in support of the respective position contended for but it may be observed that these are not of much help as the decision in each case is based on the nature of the document sued on and the points raised in the case. I may in this connection refer to the oft-quoted words of Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem (1901) A. C. 495: