OUSEPH OUSEPH Vs. SOURIYAR THOMMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these six appeals are independent of one Anr. But there is one feature common to all of them in that the claim in all the cases involves a claim arising out of a transaction in paddy. In some of the suits the claim is for the paddy due under such transactions or the value of such paddy while in the other case decrees have been passed directing payment of paddy. There is dispute between the parties as to the date on which the paddy claimed under these different categories has to be commuted into money. The question of such commutation is covered by a series of decisions of the respective High Courts of the former States of Travancore and Cochin. Tim, latest pronouncement on this question by that Travancore High Court is contained in the Full Bench decision, in. - 'Mathunni v. Kocheeppan', 1948 KER LR 110 (A) and the latest pronouncement of the Cochin High Court is contained Jnr - 'Kunhan Nair v. Raman', 37 KER 60 (FB) (B)., There is considerable divergence in the views takca' by these High Courts on the identical question. Now that the new State of Travancore -Cochin has come into existence as a result of the integration of the former States of Travancore and' Cochin and that this High Court is the High Court for the new State, it has become necessary to review the conflicting decisions in 'Mathunni v. Kocheeppan (A)' and 'Kunhan Nair v. Raman" (B)' referred to above, and to give an authoritative ruling on the question as to the date on which paddy has to be valued in suits arising out of: paddy transactions and also in the case of decrees directing payment of paddy, so that one and the same rule regarding that matter may be followed by all the Courts in the State irrespective of any, consideration as to whether the transaction in question arose within the territory covered by the former State of Travancore or the former State ah Cochin. It was for an authoritative pronouncement on that question that A.S. No. 125 of 1124: was referred to the Full Bench. The order of reference in that case is in the following terms: The question raised in this appeal is as to the date at which the paddy claimed in the suit lias to be commuted into money. So far as the former State of Travancore was concerned, the prevailing view is that laid down in the latest, Full Bench decision of the erstwhile Travancore' High Court, reported in - '1948 Trav LR 110 (FB) (A)'. There it has been laid down that in the case of a suit, paddy will have to be valued at the rate prevailing on. the date of the suit, and in the case of execution of decrees, paddy will have to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of the first execution petition. It appears that these rules are being applied to cases coming from the Travancore area, even after the new State of Travancore -Cochin has come into existence. The prevailing view in Cochin, on the same question, is entirely' different from the view taken in - '1948 Trav LR 110 (FB) (A)'. The latest decision of, the erstwhile Cochin High Court governing this matter, is the one reported in -'37 Cochin 60 (FB) (B)'. It is also a (sic)Bench decision and it is to the effect that paddy has to be commuted into money at the nirak rate prevailing on the date when such paddy became payable. This rule is being applied to cases coming from the Cochin area. We think that there is no justification for applying two rules to two sets of cases after the two States have been integrated. This Court is the High Court for the integrated State of Travancore -Cochin and there should only be one rule regarding the valuation of paddy in all cases arising within the State. The question is, which of the two conflicting Full Bench decisions has to prevail. This question has to be authoritatively decided oy a Full Bench of three or more Judges of this Court. Accordingly this case is referred to a Full Bench for decision after finally pronouncing as to which of the two conflicting views has to prevail so far as this Court is concerned.

(2.) SINCE the main question raised in the referring order already referred to arises in one form or Anr. in the other appeals also, those appeals were also referred to a Full Bench for decision. It is under these circumstances that all these appeals have come up before this Full Bench. The Pull Bench has therefore first to pronounce its opinion on the questions which are common to all these cases. Thereafter, each appeal has to be taken up separately in the light of the facts peculiar to it and a decision given on the points raised in that appeal in the light of the verdict on the common questions. The view taken in the earlier decisions of the High Courts of Travancore and Cochin was that in suits for the enforcement of claims on account of paddy, the commutation of the same into money should be at the market rate prevailing on the date of the suit. To that effect was the decision of the Full Bench of the Travancore High Court in -'Kanakku Thyapallil Eravi Padmana -bhan v. Parameswaran Pillai', 14 KER LJ 419 (C). On the question of the valuation of the paddy directed to be paid on account of rent and mesne profits subsequent to the date of the decree, it was ruled in - 'Geevarghese Mathen v. Cherian Kurin', 12 KER LJ 59 (D) that such paddy should valued at the market rate prevailing on the ate of the application for the execution of the decree. In - 'Keevareethu Philipose v. Eravi Vasu -devaru Nambooripad', 13 KER LJ 43 (E) and in - 'Itty Iype v. Neelakantan Nambooripad', 14 KER 22 (F) it was ruled that in suits for recovery of arrears of michavaram due in paddy the claim Should be valued at the market rate on the date the suit. These decisions were followed in the (Subsequent decisions also of the same High Court. But the rule was sought to be restricted in its application when the question came up for consideration in - 'Easwara Vadivu Muthamma v. Sivagnanam Pillai', 27 KER LJ 443 (E) where it was held that the rule enunciated in - '14 Trav LJ 22 (F)' and followed in - 'Chacko Joseph v. Krishna Pillai, 24 KER LJ 292 (H) can be followed only in cases where an unreasonable advantage was not intended to be taken. In the still later decision in - 'Narayanaru Agnisarmaru Namboodiri v. Rama Iyer', 1945 KER LR 712 (I) The view taken was directly opposed to the view taken in the earlier decisions. In that case it was definitely ruled that the conversion rate must be the rate prevailing on the date when paddy became due and that subsequent fluctuations of he market cannot be allowed to enhance the liabilty of the Defendant or to increase the claim of he jenmi. This was the position so far as the travancore High Court was concerned when the question of valuation of paddy again came up for the consideration of the Full Bench in - '1948 Trav LR 110 (A)'.

(3.) THE view taken by the Cochin High Court in - 'Kittu Nair v. Sankaran Moossad', 16 KER 29 (J) and in - 'Paru v. Pothayan Somayajippad', 17 Cochin 63(K) was that in paddy claims sought to be enforced through Courts, the commutation should be at the rate prevailing on the date when the paddy became payable. This view was dissented from in the subsequent decision in - 'Kathirina v. Souriar', 17 KER 386 (L) where it was ruled that paddy should be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of the plaint. This decision was. followed in - 'Rangaswami Ayyar v. Narayanan Unni', 23 KER 253 (M) and in - 'Kurien v. Ithappiri', 35 KER 713 (N). The opinion expressed by Kunjunni Raja, C.J., in - 'Paili v. Krishna Panicker', 1120 KER 300 (O) was also definitely jn favour of the same view. In an earlier case, i.e., in - 'Kunhilakshmi Amma v. Ariyan Bhattathirippad', 23 KER 87 (P), where the question of commutation of paddy payable under a decree came up for consideration, it was held that such commutation should be made at the rate prevailing when execution is sought. It was after a review of all these decisions that it was ruled, by the Full Bench in - '37 Cochin 60 (B)' that tho correct principle to be followed is that paddy payable as mesne profits or as rent should be converted into money at the market rates on the due dates. It was subsequent to this decision that the Full Bench of the Travancore High Court considered the identical question. But the Full Bench was not prepared to accept the ruling in -'37 Cochin 60 (B)' as correct. On the other hand, that Pull Bench was definitely in favour of the view taken in the earlier decisions of the High Courts of Travancore and Cochin and accordingly affirmed the principles laid down in - '12 Trav LJ 59 (D)' and in - '14 Trav LJ 419 (FB) (C) as correct.