STATE Vs. NARAYANA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant. The plaint properties which are nine in number belong to the Thazhava Devaswom and were demised on kanappattom by the Devaswom in the year 1065 in renewal of a kanom of 1032. Defendants 2 to 4 purchased the kanapattom right from the original kanamdar. Subsequently they executed a mortgage in respect of the properties in favour of defendants 5 and 6. Defendants 5 and 6 executed a sub mortgage in favour of the plaintiff on 1.2.1100. The plaintiff is thus in possession of the plaint properties. The Jenmikaram Settlement Officer of Karunagappally assessed plaint items 1 to 7 to jenmikaram in Jenmikaram Case No. 511 of 1109 on his file and settled jenmikaram at 8 paras and 7 Edangalies of paddy. Plaint items 8 and 9 were not assessed to jenmikaram. According to the plaintiff those items also are liable to be assessed to jenmikaram and the jenmikaram assessable on them is one para and 5 edangalies of paddy. As per the decision in jenmikaram Case No. 511 of 1109 the plaintiff paid jenmikaram to the Devaswom till the year 1112. In Meenom 1112 the State assumed management of the Devaswom. When the plaintiff offered jenmikaram for the years 1113 and 1114 the Devaswom authorities refused to accept the same. Plaintiff thereupon filed two suits against the Devaswom in the Karunagappally Munsiff's Court as Summary Case No. 1 of 1115 and O.S. No. 101 of 1119 and deposited in Court the jenmikaram payable in respect of the plaint properties for the years 1113 to 1118. Those suits were decreed and the Devaswom was directed to receive the jenmikaram deposited by the plaintiff. But when the plaintiff offered the jenmikaram for the years 1119 and 1120 the Devaswom authorities again refused to accept the same. They demanded from the plaintiff the dues fixed in the kanapattom document. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that Devaswom authorities had caused the decision in Jenmikaram Case No. 511 of 1109 to be cancelled in Jenmikaram Case No. 965 of 1115. The plaintiff was not given notice of the latter case. It is alleged that the decision in Jenmikaram Case No. 965 of 1115 is wrong and is liable to be set aside. It is also alleged that since the Devaswom had acquiesced in the decision in Jenmikaram case No. 511 of 1109 before the assumption of the management of the Devaswom by the State the decision in that case is binding on the State also. On these grounds the plaintiff prayed for (1) declaration that the plaint properties are liable only for the jenmikaram assessable on them, plaint items 1 to 7 being liable for the jenmikaram settled by the decision in Jenmikaram case No. 511 of 1109 and items 8 and 9 being liable for one para and 5 Edangalies of paddy per year; (2) cancellation of the decision in Jenmikaram Case No. 965 of 1115; (3) declaration that the Devaswom is entitled to realise only the balance jenmikaram after giving credit for the amount deposited by the plaintiff in the two suits in the Karunagappally Munsiff's Court, and (4) an injunction restraining the State from taking steps for the realisation of any dues other than Jenmikaram in respect of the plaint properties.

(2.) The first defendant contested the suit. It was contended that the plaint properties are the thanathu properties of the Thazhava Devaswom, that the deed of 1065 though styled as kanapattom is only a redeemable lease, that the plaintiff is liable to pay all the dues mentioned in the document of 1065, that the decision in Jenmikaram Case No. 965 of 1115 setting aside the decision in Jenmikaram Case No. 511 of 1109 is valid and binding on the plaintiff, that the plaint properties cannot be assessed to jenmikaram, that the decisions in Summary Case No. 1 of 1115 and O.S. No. 101 of 1119 of the Karunagappally Munsiff's Court are not binding on the State or the Devaswom, that the plaintiff has no cause of action, that the suit is barred by limitation, that proper Court fee was not paid and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The plaintiff filed a replication traversing the contentions in the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the plaint.

(3.) The main question that was considered by the court below was whether the document of 1065, Ext. A was a kanappattom coming within the purview of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. The learned District Judge decided this question in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that Ext. A is a Kanapatom to which the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act would apply and that the plaint properties are therefore liable to be assessed to jenmikaram under the amended Act of 1108. With regard to the decisions in Summary Case No. 1 of 1115 and O.S. No. 101 of 1109 of the Karunagappally Munsiff's Court it was held that those decisions are not binding on the Devaswom since those suits were instituted after assumption of the management of the Devaswom by the State without the State being made a party to the suits. With regard to the contention of the State relating to court fee, it was held that proper court fee was paid by the plaintiff. The decision in Jenmikaram Case No. 965 of 1115 was set aside. The suit was held to be not barred by limitation. The plaintiff's prayer for declaration that the Devaswom can recover only the balance of Jenmikaram after giving credit for the amounts deposited by the plaintiff in the two suits in the Karunagappally Munsiff's Court was disallowed. A permanent injunction was issued restraining the State from taking steps for the realisation of any dues in respect of the plaint properties other than the jenmikaram leviable under the amended Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. The first defendant was ordered to pay one half of the costs of the plaintiff.