KRISHNAN PADAMANABHAN Vs. K. KRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the 1st Defendant and raises a question of the applicability of the Holdings (Stay of Execution Proceedings) Act VIII of 1950.

(2.) THE decree in the case was for redemption of Ext. I Otti deed dated 23 -2 -1119. The 1st Defendant raised the question that Ext. I must be taken to be a Kanapattom within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 2 of the Act or alternatively it must be taken to create a leasehold right with premium, in either of which case his possession will stand protected under the Act. Both the courts below have found that Ext. A is neither a Kanom nor a lease with premium -and disallowed the 1st Defendant's objection, to -delivery, and hence this second appeal. The property had been outstanding on Kanapattom under Ext. Ill, dated 19 -8 -1074 in the first instance. Ext. Ill was subsequently renewed by Ext. IT, dated 2 -12 -10941, Ext. II being the Ethirdeed. The Defendant had purchased the rights of the tenant under Ext. II in court auction and had subsequently 'obtained from the Jenmi -Ext. I Otti deed in question. Now Ext. I is executed for a consideration of B. Rs. 84 which consisted of the original consideration under Ext. "II as well as the value of improvements effected on the property till Ext. I date.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the 1st Defendant in the first part of his argument laid stress upon two circumstances. Firstly that Ext. II though styled as a Kanom was referred to in Ext. I as as an Otti and that therefore the nomenclature of Ext. I as Otti was unimportant as between the parties .and there could be no difficulty in construing it as a Kanom. Secondly that the michavaram payable to the mortgagor under Ext. I arrangement amounting to the considerable sum of Rs. 84 per annum was specially secured by pledge of separate property of , the mortgagee.