MEENAKSHIKUTTY AMMA Vs. AMBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision Mr. A. Achuthan Nambiar, learned counsel for the plaintiff landlord, challenges the dismissal by the learned Munsif of a suit instituted by the petitioner for recovery of price representing the rent payable by way of pepper for the years 1136 and 1137 M. E.

(2.) There is no controversy that in the property in respect of which rent is claimed, pepper is cultivated as the principal crop. According to the plaintiff, the property was taken on lease by the respondent from his tarwad on an oral lease in 1940 and the agreement was to pay every year rent of 1/5th of the yield obtained by the tenant. The plaintiff claims that in the tarwad partition, the property has been allotted as and for her share in or about 1131 and the defendant has also attorned in favour of the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that a fresh agreement so to say, was entered into between herself and the defendant in and by which the defendant agreed to pay annually 1/6th of the pepper yield as rent. I have already indicated that the original agreement with the tarwad was to pay annually 1/5 of the yield whereas according to the petitioner, the fresh agreement was that the tenant is to pay 1/6 of the annual yield as rent.

(3.) The petitioner alleged that for the years 1136 and 1137 the tenant has not paid the rent due and therefore the suit was instituted for recovery of the price of pepper payable as rent for these two years.