PARAMESWARAN KARTHA Vs. OUSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for decision in this second appeal is whether a leasehold interest has been created by Ex. 1 or whether the person who has taken that document is only a licensee holding the property as varamdar. The plaint property is admittedly kuthakapattam land which the defendant has taken on registry from the State. On 26-3-1951, one Avira executed Ex. I in favour of the defendant undertaking to cultivate the property with paddy and lemongrass and give one half of the paddy crop to the defendant as varam and three bottles of lemon oil per acre for the land cultivated with lemongrass. The total extent of the property is 7 acres and 20 cents. Out of this, about five acres of land is cultivated with lemongrass and the rest with paddy. On 29-8-1951, Avira executed an assignment, Ex. B, in favour of the plaintiff conveying to him his interest in the property. According to the plaintiff, the interest that he has obtained in the property under Ex. I and Ex. B is a leasehold right and the suit was brought by him for a declaration that he has got a leasehold right in the property. The defendant contended that the interest created by Ex. I was not a leasehold interest and that Avira and the plaintiff were only licensees who have got permission under Ex. I to cultivate the land with paddy and lemongrass on certain conditions.

(2.) The Trial Court upheld the defendants contention and finding that the plaintiff was only a varam tenant dismissed the suit with costs.

(3.) On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge of Movattupuzha after quoting extensively discussions from text books and reported cases about the nature of leases and licenses and the difference between them, most of which he has misapplied to the concrete facts of the case, found that a leasehold interest was created by Ex. I and reversing the decree of the Trial Court, gave the plaintiff a declaration as sought for. The defendant has, therefore filed this second appeal.