LAKSHMI MARASSIAR Vs. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAMBIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE rent receipts, Exs. B3 and B4 obtained by the plaintiff's predecessor (and one time karanavan) the 2nd defendant from the jenmi, the 1st defendant, show that the lease was not of the land itself but only of the coconut trees standing thereon are the actual words used with the implied licence to enter on the land to collect the coconuts; and, the entry in the "remarks" column implying at best a duty on the part of the lessee (and a corresponding licence in his favour) to do the necessary tillage cannot by any stretch mean that there was a lease of the land or that possession thereof (in the legal sense of the words, "possession")was given to the lessee. THE first court was therefore wrong in holding that the plaintiffs had a lease of the land itself and the lower appellate court was right in restricting the decree in their favour to the trees.

(2.) I might add, since the appellant plaintiffs place reliance on the decision in Anandan v. Kunhi Pokker (1961 KLT. 805) to support their claim for the land itself (a claim-upheld by the first court on the strength of that decision) that the decision is not authority for the proposition advanced, namely, that a melpattam on a lease of trees accompanied by a right or duty of tillage necessarily involves a lease of the land on which the trees stand. There, the lease was a verumpattam of the land itself with the trees and buildings thereon it was, not a lease of the trees only and therefore not a mere melpattam. But there was a clause prohibi-ting the lessee from planting trees (making kuzhikoors) and reserving that right to the lessor. Therefore it was contended that the lessee was not a cultivating verumpattamdar so as to entitle him to the benefit of S. 21 of the malabar Tenancy Act. And, all that was held was that the cultivation carried on by the lessee by acts such as turning the soil and manuring, the trees in accordance with the terms of the lease made him a cultivating verumpattamdar.