SULAIKHA UMMAL Vs. SUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal, arising in execution, the only question for determination is whether the tables published by the Government under S. 13 of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act (XXIX of 1958) are to be applied. The tables were published by the Government on 25th april, 1961, when the case was pending in appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate Court held that the tables were not applicable and in that view confirmed the decision of the first court. The defendant judgment-debtor contends in second appeal that the tables are applicable.

(2.) THE suit was for the redemption of a mortgage, wherein a decree was passed for redemption on payment of the value of improvements to the mortgagees. THE Court reserved the valuation of the improvements to be done in execution. In execution a commission was taken, who submitted his report, ext. D1, on 6th November 1958 and in slight modification of that report the first Court fixed the value of the building at Rs. 1984-11 np. Regarding the other improvements like coconut trees, arecanut trees, pepper wines etc. , the executing court accepted the valuation of the commissioner. In appeal these valuations have been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. In second appeal it is argued by the learned advocate of the appellant that the valuation regarding the building as well as the trees has to be reopened and re-assessed. Regarding the building no convincing reason has been urged by the learned advocate as to how the valuation accepted by the lower Courts is wrong and therefore the valuation of the building by the lower Courts will stand.

(3.) REGARDING the bearing pepper vines the learned advocate of the appellant has given a valuation in Para. 2 of his statement. Therein he has capitalised the value of pepper vines at 20 times as contemplated by S. 7 of the Act. On this question also the learned advocate of the respondents contends that the mode of capitalisation is not quite correct. Both parties agree that the valuation has to be done under S. 7. S. 7 enacts that when the improvement has caused an increase in the value of the annual net produce of the holding, the court shall determine, as nearly as may be, the average net money value of such increase and shall award as compensation for the improvement three-fourths of the amount arrived at by capitalising such net money value at 20 times. Explanation.) and 2 to the section deal with the question as to how the money value of the net produce has to be calculated. Explanation. 2 lays down that in determining the net money value of the increase, regard shall also be had to the condition of the improvement, the probable duration of its effects and the labour and capital required to make such improvement. On the basis of this explanation the learned advocate of the respondents contends that the same mode of valuing for instance", a cocoanut tree and a pepper vine should not be adopted. His contention is that the probable duration of the effects of a cocoanut tree is much longer than the probable duration of the effects of a pepper vine and this difference in the probable durations of the effects must be taken into consideration in determining the net money value of the increase in the value of the annual net produce of the holding. Similarity the condition of the improvements and the labour and capital required to make them should also be taken into consideration.