SREEKUMARAN KESAVAN NAMBOORI Vs. GOPALAN MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaint property is held on redeemable or irredeemable tenure. According to the plaintiff appellant, plaint schedule items, belongs to his illom and is being held by the 1st defendant under a kanom deed of 1099 which has been produced as Ext. A in the case. The plaintiffs case is that item 1 is not jenmom land and that the tenure created by Ext. A is not therefore an irredeemable kanom governed by the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, but only redeemable mortgage. Alleging that the Kanom amount has been wiped out by the arrears of michavaram, plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of possession of the property with mesne profits. There was also an alternative prayer for recovery of arrears of michavaram and other dues if it was found that the property was being held on irredeemable tenure. Plaint items 2 to 8 are buildings in item 1. Plaintiff offered to pay Rs. 50 as the value of these buildings and prayed that, if a decree for eviction was given to him and the defendants were not willing to accept Rs. 50 as compensation for the buildings, they must be compelled to remove the same. The 1st defendant contended inter alia that Ext. A was an irredeemable kanapattom, and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to get only the jenmi-karom in respect of it. The lower court upheld this contention and refused to give a decree to the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the property. Since the Jenmikarom Settlement Officer had already held in Jenmikarom Settlement Proceedings that the property was not governed by the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, to meet the ends of justice the lower court gave a decree to the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of michavaram for 6 years before the date of suit and also directed him to apply again to the Jenmikarom Settlement Officer to fix the jenmikarom of the property. While the 1st defendant has acquiesced in this decree the plaintiff has filed the appeal complaining against the finding that the tenure is irredeemable and the consequent dismissal of his claim for recovery of possession.

(2.) The major portion of plaint item 1 is being held by the 1st defendant under Ext. A. A tiny plot in the south-eastern portion of that item has been obtained by the defendants under a puduval registry from the State. Plaintiffs case in respect of this plot is that it was also comprised in Ext. A demise and that the benefit of the registry would therefore enure to him. No separate arguments were advanced in this court as regards this plot, and the case was proceeded with hereon the footing that the right to this plot would depend upon the right of the rest of item 1.

(3.) Ext. V is an extract from the Settlement Register of Alleppey Pakuthy relating to plaint item 1. The tenure of plaint item 1 is shown therein as Pandaravaka Kudi Jenmom. It is therefore contended by the appellants counsel that the plaint property is not Jenmom land as that term is defined in the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act and that Ext. A is not therefore a Kanapattom governed by the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. That Ext. A has all the other incidents of a Kanapattom under the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act was not disputed in this court. The only contention in this court was that the plaint property was not jenmom land within the definition of that term in the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act but is a grant to the plaintiffs illom by the Sovereign and that as such it is not governed by the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. A remand was also asked for to decide the question whether the plaint property is a grant to the plaintiffs illom by the Sovereign or not.