KIDANGOOR DEVASWOM Vs. OUSEPH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third Defendant in O.S. 135 of 1118 of the District Munsiff's Court of Ettumanoor is the Appellant in this second appeal. At the time of the Jenmi -karom settlement under the Travancore Jenmi Kudiyan (Amendment) Act of 1108, the Sirkar treated the suit property in this case as land held on 'kana -pattom' from the third Defendant, the Kidangoor Devaswom, and assessed jenmi -karom for that property on that footing. O.S. 135 of 1118 was filed for setting aside the decision of the Jenmi -Karom Settlement Officer in regard to the suit property and for a declaration that it was not liable to be assessed to jenmi -karom at all. According to the plaint allegations the property was 'Pandarapattom' land which originally belonged to the Ulavoor family and the Plaintiff had obtained a sale of the rights of the said family and redeemed the prior mortgages and was in possession and the Kidangoor Devaswom had no right at all to the property.

(2.) THE Courts below have clearly misunderstood Section 44, Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. What is required by that section for absolving the Kudiyan from liability to pay jenmi -karom is not that he or his predecessor -in -interest should have been in possession, without paying michavarom and other dues or without taking any renewal, for more than fifty years preceding the date of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan (Amendment) Act of 1108 but that he should have been in such possession for more than fifty years preceding the date of the original Act (Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act) which was passed in 1071 and which was only amended by the Amendment Act of 1108.