VARKEY Vs. THUPPAN NAMBOOTHIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant is the appellant. The plaint properties belonged to the plaintiffs Illom. They had been given on Kanom to defendants 1 to 3 on 10.12.1093. Under the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act as amended by Act XII of 1108, the Jenmikaram due from the properties in the Kanom was fixed at 40 paras and 2 1/2 Edangalies of paddy and one rupee 2 Chuckrams and 13 Cash a year. The plaintiff stated that the two survey numbers included in the Kanom deed were lying within the same boundaries and the total extent of these properties was 100 cents. Of these, defendants 1 to 3 were in possession of 49 cents in S. No. 207/3, and defendants 4 to 6 in possession of the remaining 33 cents in the same survey numbers. 18 cents in S. No. 151/2 were with the 7th defendant. It was the plaintiff's allegation, that when the Jenmikaram was settled as regards these three parcels of land, some mistake crept in, so that the Jenmikaram on the 49 cents was fixed at 4 Paras and 1/4 Edangaly of paddy and 3 chs. 1 cash, that on the 33 cents at 3 Paras and 2 1/4 Edangalies of paddy and 2 chs. 7 cash, and that on the remaining 18 cents at 33 paras of paddy and 25 chs. 5 cash a year. There were material discrepancies and mistakes in thus fixing the Jenmikaram, and the decision has to be varied by fixing the Jenmikaram on the basis of the extent of the properties. The plaintiff would say that on the above basis the Jenmikaram due on the 49 cents would be 19 Paras 7 1/16 Edangalies of paddy and 15 chs. 1 57/100 cash, on the 33 cents it would be 13 Paras 2 11/16 Edangalies of paddy and 10 chs. 2 69/100 cash, and on the 18 cents the same would be 7 Paras 2 6/16 Edangalies of paddy and 5 chs. 8 74/100 cash. The Jenmikaram was left in arrears from 1114 to the half of 1117. The plaintiff therefore prayed for rectification of the Jenmikaram decision on the basis of the calculation made by him as mentioned above, and for the realisation of the sum total of Jenmikaram at 40 Paras 2 1/2 Edangalies of paddy and one rupee 2 chs. 13 cash a year charged on all the plaint properties.

(2.) The 1st defendant contended that he was interested in the 49 cents mentioned in the plaint. It forms a portion of S. No. 207/3. He admitted the Kanom document of 1093. For the 49 cents in his possession, the Jenmikaram Officer Vycome, determined the Jenmikaram due on the same on the basis of a statement given by the plaintiff. After the decision, notices of the same had been given to the plaintiff, who was thereafter receiving the Jenmikaram due on the 49 cents at the rate fixed by the Jenmikaram Settlement Officer. Thereafter, in 1112, the plaintiff filed small cause suit 53 of 1115 in the District Court, Kottayam, for the Jenmikaram due from both the survey numbers. The defendant had contended there that the said 49 cents were liable for Jenmikaram only at the rate of 4 Paras 1/4 Edangali of Paddy and 3 chs. 1 cash a year. That was upheld by the District Court and confirmed by the High Court. He therefore contended that himself and the 49 cents in his possession were liable to be charged with the Jenmikaram at the rate fixed by the Jenmikaram Settlement Officer.

(3.) The Courts below held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get the decision of the Jenmikaram Settlement Officer revised or modified. His prayer for the purpose therefore was dismissed, and the plaintiff had submitted to that. That portion of the decree was not appealed against by the plaintiff. The contentions of the 1st defendant that the 49 cents in his possession could be made liable only for the amount of Jenmikaram fixed by the Settlement Officer as due from that property, and not for arrears due from other portions of the same survey number as well as from S.No. 151/2 included in the Kanom deed of 1093, were not accepted by the court below. It is this later portion of the decree against the 1st defendant that is appealed against.