JOSEPH Vs. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Second Appeal, on behalf of the 5th defendant-appellant, Mr. N. K. Varkey challenges the order of the learned subordinate Judge disagreeing with the first court and disallowing compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,156-4-0. This claim for compensation was made for rubber trees stated to have been planted by the 5th defendant-appellant who was holding the properties on mortgage.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the document evidencing the transaction of kumbhom 1083 namely, the mortgage document specifically gives permission to the mortgagee to plant only coconut, arecanut, and jack trees and it also specifically prohibits the mortgagee from planting rubber, coffee, tea, and cardamom. That means, the mortgagee was specifically prohibited from planting commercial crops on the properties. There is also no controversy that the claim for the value of improvements made by the mortgagee regarding rubber in the proceedings connected with the suit, appeal, and Second appeal was negatived.