KINANTHI SUSEELA Vs. NAMBIATHAN BHATTATHIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal raises a short point under S. 61 of the Transfer of Property Act. THE plaintiff filed the suit for redemption and recovery of possession based on Ext. Al registered kana kychit dated 7-12-1890 executed by Ullanoor Parameswaran Namboodiri to the predecessor of the plaintiff. Though the suit was once decreed, by the trial court it was set aside in A. S. 6 of 1956 on the file of the Ottapalam Sub Court and the suit was remanded to the trial court for trial under Act 4 of 1961. After remand the plaintiff amended the plaint to the effect that if he is not entitled to recover possession of the plaint property he should be allowed to redeem the puramkadam charge and from the date of such redemption he should be given a decree for recovery of enhanced purappad under the document.

(2.) THE courts below found that in view of Act 4 of 1961 the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for recovery of possession. But a decree was granted allowing the plaintiff redemption of the puramkadam charge and enhanced purapad. THE second appeal is filed by the defendants.

(3.) RELYING on the above observations, it was contended before me that the amount advanced under the puramkadam being only an enhancement of the principal amount covered by the kanom no separate redemption is possible. The meaning of the term "puramkadam" extracted in the above passage is from the glossary in Sundara Aiyar's Malabar and Aliyasanthana law. But the learned author at page 300 of that book says: "puramkadam is further advance made by the kanomdar on the saecurity of the land. Interest is usually deducted from the michavaram. Whether the amount was payable before the redemption of the kanom arose in kunhi Amma v. Ahmed Haji, (1889) I. L. R. 23 Madras 105. There was a difference of opinion in the case; Mr. Justice Moors holding that under the customary law it could not be "redeemed earlier; the other judges holding the contrary. In S. A. 2178 of 1916 it was held that the mortgagor was bound to redeem the puramkadam also. The question is one of construction and not of usage. "