NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRI Vs. PADMANABHA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by a decree holder, whose decree for arrears of 'thirippuvaram' has been held repayable in instalments under the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 31 of 1958. He contended that 'thirippuvaram' comes under the category of 'any rent or michavaram payable in respect of any land or building', exempted from the operation of the Act. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in Kesava Iyen Ramakrishna Iyen v. The Dewan of Travancore (6 TLJ 293) 'thiruppuvaram' was held to be of the nature of rent. But, in the later rulings, Narayanaru Krishnanaru v. Peruman Sankaran (19 TLJ 345) and Chacko Ouseph v. Parameswaran Sreedharan Moothathu ( 1952 KLT 677 ), 'thiruppuvaram' has been held to be revenue assigned by way of a grant by the State to its holder. Sirkar v. Neelakantaru Thupparu Nambooripad (26 TLJ 1226) traced the different considerations for such grants. It is not known from the evidence on record what was the genesis of the grant that gave rise to the decree here; and it is doubtful whether revenue assigned in consideration of a liability to pay rent will itself be rent. Whatever that be, I think the expressions 'rent' and 'michavaram' in the Debt Relief Act, not having been defined in the Act, must bear their popular meanings; and they are what are payable to a landlord by a tenant under a lease or a kanom respectively. It then follows that 'thirippuvaram', which is the subject of the decree in this case, is not rent or michavaram, and the finding of the court below that the decree is within the purview of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 31 of 1958, is correct.