RAMAN AYYAPPAN MALAPPURATH Vs. VADAKKE MADOM BRAHMASWAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was for arrears of jenmikaram and renewal fee for the period from 1956 December to 1964 January. It is unnecessary to detail the facts giving rise to the suit or to this second appeal, as Counsel for the appellant very fairly stated before me that the merits of the appeal were concluded against him by an earlier decision on similar facts in second Appeal 731 of 1967, which he made ho attempt to attack or distinguish. Following the same, this second appeal must fail on the merits.

(2.) The only contention that was urged by Counsel for the appellant was that this second appeal is liable to be stayed under S.4 of the Kerala Cultivators and Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act 1970 (Act 20 of 1970). That it is so liable to be stayed, if the suit relates to recovery of arrears of rent, seems clear enough; and the contention was, that jenmikaram is 'rent' as defined by the Kerala Act I of 1964 as amended. But a look at the relevant provisions of the concerned Acts, is sufficient to repel this contention. S.2 clause (13) of the Kanam Tenancy Act defines jenmikaram as follows:

(3.) Turning now to the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act I of 1964) it is significant that the definition of the term 'kanam' in S.2, clause (22) of the Act, expressly exempts by a proviso, kanam or any other demise governed by the Kanam Tenancy Act, from its scope. S.2, clause (49) defines the term 'rent' as what is lawfully payable in money or in kind, by a person permitted to have the use and occupation of any land to the one so permitted, and includes michavaram. (I have omitted the unnecessary words in the definition). It is plain from the provisions of the Kanam Tenancy Act, which I have detailed earlier, that jenmikaram cannot be regarded as consideration paid by the kanamdar for any permission to occupy the land to the person who so permitted such occupation. The definition of the term 'jenmikaram' itself makes it clear that it is a payment in lieu of all claims of the jenmi; and the provision in S.3 further makes it clear that the kanam tenant shall be deemed to be the owner of the land.