DUDACHAN Vs. SREENIVASA KINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition raises a short, but important, question regarding the applicability of S. 19 of Keral a Act IV of 1961 to varomdars.

(2.) THE Civil Revision Petitioner, who is a varomdar , filed O. S. No. 714 of 1961 on the file of the lower court for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property as varomdar. A temporary injunction pending suit was also sought, which was granted by the lower court. On 26th September 1961 the respondent-landlord applied for the issue of a commission for harvesting the crops on the plaint property and dividing the gross produce equally between the landlord and the varomdar. THE varomdar -petitioner objected to this course on the ground that he was entitled to pay his dues either in kind or in money at his option and the court had no jurisdiction to issue a commission for harvesting the crops and dividing the produce. This objection was overruled and the commissioner was directed to harvest the crops and divide the gross produce equally between the parties. In revision the varomdar impeaches the correctness of this order.

(3.) THE learned advocate of the respondent takes objection to this line of reasoning. According to him, the varomdar under Act IV of 1961 has only two rights, namely, the right to fixity of tenure and the right to purchase the land occupied by him under varom. He goes even to the extent of contending that the varomdar has no possession of the land he is holding under the varom arrangement. This contention, I mean the contention that the varomdar has no possession of the land held by him in varom, is evidently untenable, because S. 2 [40] specifically lays down that the occupation of land by a varomdar is possession. I fail to understand why the benefits contemplated by the Act to a varomdar should be confined to the right of fixity of tenure and to the right to purchase the lands with him under varom. THE respondent's learned advocate further contends that the land held by a varomdar under a varom arrangement is not a holding. I do not see any force in this contention either. S. 2 (15) defines "holding" as a parcel or parcels of land held under a single transaction by a tenant from a landlord. If a varomdar is a tenant, which undoubtedly he is under S. 2 (50) (i ) (h), then a varom arrangement regarding a parcel of land between the varomdar and the landlord is certainly a holding under S. 2 (15 ). I do not find any escape from the position that the legislature intended to confer the status of a tenant on the varomdar and the several provisions of the Act indubitably point in that direction.