KADISUMMA Vs. ABDULRAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition seeks to revise the order made by the learned Munsiff of Hosdrug on July 25, 1958 dismissing R.I.A. No. 526 of 1958 in O. S. No. 45 of 1958 on the file of his court. R.I.A. No. 526 of 1958 was an application to amend the written statement filed in the suit and the learned Munsiff rejected the application. The defendants have therefore brought this revision.

(2.) The suit was to redeem a Kaivasom panayam and it was instituted before the court of the Munsiff at Taliparamba on 29-9-1955. The defendants filed their written statement on 3-4-1956 and in it they contended that of the two items comprised in the plaint schedule they had obtained full title to item 1 and that they were willing to submit to the redemption of item 2 on receipt of the proportionate mortgage money (which they sought to fix at Rs. 1,200) and the value of improvements. The kaivsom panayam was for a consideration of Rs. 1,400. The suit was later transferred to the file of the Munsiffs Court of Hosdrug and there some time after the plaintiff was examined as a witness on his side the defendants filed R.I.A. No. 256 of 1958 on 23-6-1958 to amend their written statement. The amendment sought to challenge the right of the plaintiff to redeem item 2 inasmuch as according to them even though the document sued upon was styled a kaivasom panayam it was really a kanam and therefore irredeemable. Reliance was sought to be placed on a notification of the Government of Madras dated 25-8-1954 under S.54 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, but as pointed out by the learned Munsiff that notification applied to South Kanara District and not to North Malabar where the plaint schedule properties were situate. S.22 of the Malabar Tenancy Act as amended on 19-3-1954, however, enabled the defendants to contend and prove that notwithstanding any application given to a document it was really a kanam. The amendment of the Act was more than two years before the defendants filed their written statement and yet in that written statement they admitted their liability to be redeemed. The amendment of the written statement sought for however denied the plaintiffs right to redeem and the learned Munsiff thought that it was not proper to permit the defendants to substitute a plea of denial of liability in place of one of admission. For that and the further reasons