EMUNNI PANIKKER Vs. KRISHNA PANIKKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this civil revision petition filed by the 1st defendant is whether the court below was wrong in having refused stay under the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act I of 1957.

(2.) The suit was laid as for redemption of a possessory panayam deed executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant and dated 2-4-1944 corresponding to 20-3-1119. It was in renewal of a prior deed dated 10-5-1918 as between the families of the parties and of the same type but limited to some only of the items and for portion alone of the consideration. Under the provisions of his deed, the 1st defendant was to adjust the interest due to him on the consideration under the deed and also pay sirkar tax from out of pattom of 240 paras and pay the balance of 106 paras of paddy as annual purappad to the 2nd plaintiff. There was also a provision for redemption at the end of the term of six years reserved and similarly for recovery of the consideration by sale of the property. The court below held that the document evidenced a usufructuary mortgage rather than a kanom and so refused stay. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner says that the court below has failed to take into account the amended definition of Kanom in the Malabar Tenancy Act governing the parties and missed the point in consequence.

(3.) Now a holding, with reference to which the Stay of Eviction Proceedings is provided for, is defined in S.2(1) of the Act as follows: