RAVARICHANDIYIL KRISHNAN NAIR Vs. THAYYULLATHIL ABDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these cases the validity of Section 11-A of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt relief Act, 31 of 1958, which provides for the premature termination of melpattoms granted by an agriculturist before the commencement of the Act for periods of two years or more on application made by the gran-tors is challenged by the grantees, melpattomdars-as they are called. The original petitions are sack applications withdrawn to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution while the revision petitions and the appeal are from orders made by subordinate Courts on such applications. The cases-have been referred to a Full Bench because of the-general importance of the questions involved.

(2.) SECTION 11-A runs as follows: ' 11-A. Special provisions regarding certain melpattoms.

(3.) THE deeds in which the transactions in question are embodied call themselves melpattom deeds and the transaction, a melpattom. A melpattom (literally, a lease of what is above the surface) is a lease of trees with no interest in the land, ordinarily enuring for one year--see Sundara Iyer's, Mala-bar and AJiyasanthana law, pages 290 and 453 and C. Ramachandra Aiyar's, A Manual of Mala-bar Law, page 42, The principal argument advanced on behalf of the melpattomdars is, however, that the transactions we are considering, though called melpattoms, are really sales of goods, namely, coconuts, in one case arecanuts, as well, existing and future. The contention is that the transactions do not come within the definition of melpattom in Section 2 (ff) which pustulates a debtor-creditor relationship between the grantor and the grantee. If, however, they do, then section 11-A is beyond the legislative competence of the State and is also bad for offending Articles 14, 19, 301 and 304 of the Constitution.