C S CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR Vs. K GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for redemption of Ext. A1 transaction is the appellant in the second appeal. There were various contentions to resist the suit. One was that the transaction in truth and substance amounted to tenancy. The other was that the question whether Ext. A1 document dated 5-10-1954 evidences a tenancy was within the exclusive jurisdiction of Land Tribunal. And the third one related to the value of improvements.

(2.) The title of the plaintiff was upheld and the transaction was found to be a redeemable mortgage. The suit was therefore decreed. Value of improvements to the extent of Rs. 170 had been granted. Three contentions were raised before the Appellate Authority and they related to the nature of the document, about the propriety of not referring the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal, and the finding on the value of improvements.

(3.) The last question is one of fact and no violation of any principle of law is established.