THOMMAN Vs. SUBRAMONIA IYEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for decision in this Second appeal is whether the legal heirs of a deceased lessee, who after succeeding to the rights in the leasehold (on the death of their predecessor-in-interest)part with their rights by a transfer to a third party, are liable for the rent that accrue due after the transfer.

(2.) ONE Devassy took plaint-schedule item 1 on lease from the plaintiff-Samooham as per Ext. A, dated 27. 10. 1077, undertaking to pay an yearly rent of 60 paras of paddy. The Samooham had an usufructuary mortgage over the property from Kizhakkaniedath Mana who owned the jenmam right. The lease was for a period of 6 years certain, but Devassy continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the leasehold by holding over until he died in 1102. On that event happening his legal heirs took possession of the property. They however, parted with their rights in favour of the jenmi Kizhakkaniedath mana as per a release deed, Ext. VI dated 31. 1. 1107. The present suit was brought on 26. 11. 1119 for arrears of rent accrued due during the 12 years preceding its institution. Personal relief for rent for the 6 years immediately preceding the suit was claimed against defendants 1 to 17, the legal heirs of devassy. Defendant 18 was a Kudikidappukaran. Defendants 19 to 21 had come into possession of the leasehold property under the Mana sometime before the suit and they were sought to be made personally liable for the rent for the last 3 years. Defendant 1 died during the course of the suit and his heirs were impleaded as defendants 22 to 24. Item 2 of the plaint-schedule which belonged to Devassy was secured by him to the Samooham for due payment of the rent and this was effected by the deposit of title deed thereto (Ext. B) with the samooham. The plaintiff-Samooham claimed a charged decree for the rent for all the 12 years against item 2 of the plaint and the leasehold right over item 1.

(3.) THE identical question arose in Narayanan Nair v. Velandy (1929) XX Cochin Law Reports 169 and the decision rendered there is in accord with the view expressed above. In that case the lease was one surrenderable on demand and Krishna Menon, J. observed that such leases are recognised in this country as creating alienable and heritable rights in immovable property and that as such defendant 1, who was the son of the lessee and had assigned away his interests in the leasehold, was liable for arrears of rent that accrued due after the transfer, provided he was shown to have sufficient assets of the deceased in his hands to meet the claim.