ITTIRAVI NAMBOODIRI Vs. KRISHNANKUTTY MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by plaintiffs 1, 3, 8 and 10 from a decree in a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the basis of title. The plaint schedule property belonged to the illom of the plaintiffs. The mother of defendants 1 to 5 executed Ext. A lease deed on 24-4-1116 in favour of Narayanart namboodiri, the father of the 1st plaintiff and the karnavan of the illom, and got possession of the plaint property. The lease was for a period of six years from 1117, but it was to terminate only during the agricultural season viz. , between the 30th of Makaram and the 30th of Meenam in 1123. The rent fixed in Ext. A was 350 paras of paddy. Under it the lessor received a muppatom of Rs. 1,000/- as security for the due payment of rent : and it was provided therein that the lessee would be entitled to deduct 100 paras of paddy out of the rent fixed as interest on the muppattom amount. It also authorized the lessee to deduct 80 paras of paddy out of the rent fixed for the payment of the tax on the property which came to Rs. 39/- and odd : the lessee was also given the right to obtain a sub-patta on the joint application of the lessor and the lessee. The plaintiffs contended that that lease was invalid on the ground that the lease was granted without the consent of the majority of the adult members of the illom and that it was not supported by necessity. It was alleged that the lease was not beneficial to the illom as the rent stipulated was low and bore no proportion to the yield of the property, that the rate of interest on the muppattom was very high and that the reservation of 80 paras of paddy for payment of the tax on the property was excessive. The plaintiffs therefore, prayed for setting aside the lease. In the alternative they claimed the right to pay off the muppattom, and to revoke the authority of the tenant to pay the tax, and to recover the whole pattom fixed without any deductions for interest and tax.

(2.) THE substantial contentions of defendants 1 and 3 to 5 were that the lease was valid, that it was only for a period of six years, that the karnavan of the illom was competent to grant the same, that it was supported by necessity, that the muppatom amount was received by the karnavan for discharging debts binding on the illom, and that ebeen if the lease was for a period of more than six years, it was subsequently affirmed by the adult members of the illom and therefore it was not open to attack on the ground that it was granted without the written consent of the majority of the adult members of the illom. It was further contended that the rate of interest on the muppattom was not in any way excessive, that the reservation of 80 paras of paddy for payment of tax was not high, that the commutation rate of paddy was fixed with reference to the then current price of paddy, that the defendants had acquired fixity of tenure under the Cochin venimpattdmdars Act (Act VIII of 1118) and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession of the property. As regards the alternative prayer in the olaint, the defendants contended that before the termination nf the lease transaction it was not open to the plaintiffs to pay off the muppattom amount or revoke the arrangement in Ext. A in respect of the payment of the tax.

(3.) THE court below found that the lease was for a period of only six years and therefore it was open to the karnavan to grant the same without the written consent of the majority of the adult members of the illom. The court also found that all the adult members of the illom had affirmed Ext. A by their subsequent conduct, that the lease was supported by necessity and that it was beneficial to the illom. On the question whether the plaintiffs were entitled to pay off the muppattom amount and get by way of pattom the paddy which was directed to be deducted for interest on the muppattom, the court found that the plaintiffs were not so entitled for the reason that the lease was a single transaction which cannot be dissected into parts; and that as the plaintiffs could not recover possession of the property by virtue of the pravi-sions of the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act, they were not entitled to pay off the muppattom amount or revoke the authority of the tenant to pay the tax. In this view it dismissed the suit.