RAMA IYER Vs. PARVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the 1st defendant-appellant is liable to pay mesne profits. The suit which gave rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties. Her husband Neelakanta Iyer inherited the property from his father Subramania Iyer, who died in the year 1087 (M. E.). Neelakanta Iyer also died in 1102 (M. E.). His mother Chinnammal was alive at the time of his death. For Chinnammal's maintenance the plaint schedule properties were allotted under a 'Nischayapatram'. Chinnammal was given the right to lease the properties, and the properties were ultimately given on lease to the appellant by a registered document dated 21-8-1116 for a term of 6 years on a rent of Rs. 200/-. Under the lease deed the appellant could effect improvements. Chinnammal died on 31-1-56. After her death the plaintiff claimed recovery of possession of the properties with mesne profits from the date of Chinnammal's death.

(2.) First defendant filed a written statement in which he denied the plaintiff's title as reversionary heir, asserted that Chinnammal had an absolute estate and not merely a life estate for maintenance. In the alternative he claimed that Chinnammal having executed the lease deed, he is entitled to continue in possession till he was paid his value of improvements and that he was not liable to pay mesne profits, but need pay only the rent stipulated in the lease deed.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the lease granted by Chinnammal terminated with her death, that the appellant not having surrendered possession was bound to pay mesne profits from the date of the plaint and fixed the rate of mesne profits at Rs. 1,148-4-0 and 124 paras of paddy a year. The learned Judge, however, awarded value of improvements to the appellant amounting to Rs. 2,212-4-8.