VICAR PAUL KAKASSERI Vs. DAMODARAN ADITHIRIAPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S.No.734 of 1123 of the Trichur Munsiffs Court are the appellants in S.A. No.51 of 1954. They are defendants in O.S. No. 736 of 1123 also and are the appellants in S.A. No. 52 of 1954. They represent the Ollur Church. The plaintiff in both the suits is the same. He is the manager of Kalleri Thamarapilli Mana to which the properties in the two suits belong. The properties were demised on kanam to the defendant Church. The last renewal of the kanom was on 3.6.1098. Ext. I in O.S. No. 734 of 1123 is the renewal deed relating to the property which is the subject matter of that suit. Ext. I in O.S. No. 736 of 1123 is the renewal deed relating to the property involved in that suit. Plaintiff filed the two suits for recovery of arrears of michavarom, renewal fees and puravakas due under the kanom deeds and for renewal of the kanom with enhanced michavaram. The defendants deposited in court the arrears of michavaram, renewal fees and puravakas but contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to get enhanced michavarom.

(2.) The michavarom payable in respect of the property involved in O.S. No. 734 of 1123 under the renewed deed of 1098 was Rs. 15-5-5 besides 4 as. 7 ps. payable as parambupanam. The michavarom payable for the property which is the subject matter of O.S. No. 736 of 1123 was Rs. 24-4-0 besides parambupanam of 4 as. 7 ps. There was also provision in the renewed kanom deeds for payment of other puravakas. In O.S. No. 734 of 1123 the plaintiff claimed enhancement of michavaram to Rs. 70/- while in the other suit the plaintiff wanted michavarom to be enhanced to Rs. 100/-. The Trial Court enhanced michavaram to Rs. 50-14-8 for the property involved in O.S. No. 734 of 1123 and to Rs. 100/- for the other property. The appeals filed by the defendants from these decrees were dismissed by the District Court. Hence these second appeals.

(3.) The Trial Court re-settled michavaram for the properties on the basis of their present yield. It was contended for the defendants that the jenmi was not entitled to have michavaram re-settled on the basis of the yield from the kanom property at the time of the renewal of the kanom deed. S.34 of the Cochin Tenancy Act (Act XV of 1113) contains the provision relating to enhancement or reduction of pattom, as the case may be, at the time of the renewal of the kanom deed. It reads.