JOSEPH Vs. ELYKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant portion of sub-s. (10) (1) reads as follows: " (10 ) (1) In suits for specific performance of contract or, for recovery of immovable property including trees when such suits are based on a contract, (d) in the case of a lease granted or to be granted to those who have no right of permanent occupancy. According to one-fifth of the aggregate amount of rent payable therein together with the premium or fine if any;" In order to attract the provision extracted above the tenant should not have a right of permanent occupancy and it has hence to be decided whether the Cochin Verumpattamdars Act, VIII of 1118, does or does not confer on verumpattam tenants a right of permanent occupancy.

(2.) THE Preamble to the Act says: "whereas it is deemed expedient to confer on certain terms and conditions, fixity of tenure to verumpattom tenants"s. 4 provides: "notwithstanding any law, or custom or contract to the contrary every verumpattomdar shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding and shall not be evicted therefrom except as provided in S. 8 of this act"and S. 8 enumerates the grounds on which an eviction of a verumpattamdar will be possible subsequent to the passing of the Act. THE two lower courts have taken the view, and in our opinion rightly that a verumpattam tenant since the passing of the Cochin Verumpattamdars Act, VIII of 1118, should be considered as a person enjoying a right to permanent occupancy and that the provision of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125, applicable to the present suit is S. 3 (5) (b) which deals with tenants who have a right to permanent occupancy and provides for the payment of court fee according to the market value of the subject matter, such value, in cases of dispute, being taken to be "ten times the annual gross profits of such land, building or garden where it is capable of yielding annual profits minus the assessment paid, if any, to the Government".

(3.) THE market value of the property appears to be in dispute and so the court fee payable in this case should be ten times the annual gross profits less the assessment paid to the Government. THE learned district Munsiff has proceeded on the basis that the profits will amount to Rs. 1,000 per year, and come to the conclusion that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of his court and should hence be returned for presentation to the proper court. THEre is no foundation for the assumption that the annual gross profits will amount to Rs. 1,000 except an exaggerated claim in the plaint - prayer (a) - for future mesne profits at that rate. Ext.A only provides for an annual pattam of Rs. 40 and the sole evidence in the case (D. W. 4) is that the yield of the property consists of about 2,000 cocoanuts per year.