VANJIPUZHA MADHOM ESTATE Vs. PYLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this second appeal by the defendant is whether patta which was given to the plaintiff under S.5(2) sub cl. (iii) of the Travancore Edavagai Act, III of 1109, should have been given under the first and not the third sub clause of that sub-section and this depends on another question namely whether the demise of the property evidenced by Ext. A is an irredeemable demise or not. If, as contended by the plaintiff demisee it is irredeemable the grant of patta should have been under sub cl. (i). If, on the other hand, it is redeemable the grant of the patta should be as it was under sub cl. (iii). The land demised is not jenmam land within the meaning of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, V/1071. It is land comprised in an Edavaga. In 1954 KLT 588 a Full Bench of this Court held that attributes and features which would render a demise of jenmam land irredeemable under Act V of 1071 will not operate to render a demise irredeemable in respect of any land which is not jenmam land under that Act. Should the demise of any land other than jenmam under Act V of 1071 be irredeemable, it must be rendered irredeemable contractually. The interpretation of the demise in question would determine redeemability or irredeemability. If the demise expressly stipulates for irredeemability there can be no question. The demise will be irredeemable. Difficulty arises only in cases where express stipulation against redemption is absent. If a demise stipulates for renewal at the expiry of every cycle of 12 years or whichever period is fixed as the duration of the demise then it is tantamount to a stipulation for irredeemability as held in Second Appeal No. 362 of 1124 because the landlord demisor is compelled to grant renewals at the end of every cycle, i.e. as soon often as the period of a demise expires. If the demisor is bound to renew he cannot ask for redemption. The question where a demise stipulates for renewal simplicite without stipulating for renewal at the end of every period or cycle of the demise, was considered by this court in 1954 KLT 671 and it was held that such a stipulation would entitle the demisee to but one renewal and not to the introduction of the stipulation for renewal also in that renewal which would render the stipulation one for perpetual renewal. In this case the demise in question is admittedly not of jenmam land to which Act V of 1071 would apply. There is no express stipulation against redeemability nor is there a stipulation for grant of renewal at the end of every cycle. There is provision for renewal at the end of the period of demise as per the deed. There is also stipulation for payment of customary dues. Applying the aforesaid decisions it is clear that the demisee is entitled only to one renewal. Ext. A was of 1097. The period expired in 1109. A renewal for 12 years from that time will expire in the year 1121. Beyond that the demisee is not entitled to continue. The existence of provisions for payment of customary dues will not render the demise irredeemable, the land being Edavaga and not jenmam. Both the courts below come to the conclusion that the demise in question is irredeemable and that therefore grant of patta to the plaintiff must have been under the first and not the third sub clause of S.5(2) of Act III of 1109. For the reasons above mentioned their view is wrong and setting their decision aside I allow the second appeal and hold that the grant of patta to the plaintiff under sub cl. (3) of S.5(2) of Act III of 1090 is right and that he has no case for complaint.