RAMASWAMY Vs. NEELAKANTA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the plaintiffs and defendants 12 and 13. Having heard counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the only question which really arises in this Appeal is whether or not defendants 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 (the "contesting respondents") are a class of people protected by S.43 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 (Madras Act XIV of 1930), so as to attract the proviso to clauses (i) to (vii) of S.3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 If the proviso applied, the position would be that none of the exemptions provided in clauses (i) to (vii) of S.3 would take away the fixity of tenure enjoyed by these respondents.

(2.) S.3 of the KLR Act provides:

(3.) Referring to this Section, counsel for the appellants. Sri P. N. K. Achan contends that the Section did not save a lease created by a person having only a life-interest, for such a person could not, as held in Vareed v. George, 1970 KLT 739 , create a subordinate interest which would continue after the termination of the life-interest The general principle of law; Sri. Achan says, was well recognised in Manabir Gope v. Harbans Narain, AIR 1952 SC 205 , where the Supreme Court pointed out: