KUTTEN Vs. UMAMAHESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant in this second appeal which has arisen in execution. Under the final decree in the case, 80 cents of plaint item No. 1 which is in the possession of the appellant has been allotted to the plaintiffs. In execution, admitting the decree holders' right to possession of those 80 cents, the appellant advanced a claim for compensation under Act XXIX of 1958 for his improvements on the property. The courts below have concurred in negativing that claim on the ground that he is not a tenant as defined in the Act,

(2.) Counsel contends that the appellant would come within the definition in S.2(d)(iii) of the Act, which reads thus :

(3.) Even under the Marumakkathayam law, which applied to the parties in the pre partition stage, a member in possession of undivided tarwad property as such is not entitled to claim improvements as against the other members at partition.