JANAKI AMMA Vs. VASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendant landlord in a suit for re-surrender of property filed by the plaintiff tenant under S.53 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The original deed of surrender Ext. P1 provided for payment by the landlord (1) Rs. 1,000 as consideration for value of the standing crops, seedlings that existed on the property at the time of the surrender and also towards the cultivation profits of the tenant and (2) Rs. 1,448 towards the value of the tenancy rights of the plaintiff. S.53 (2) provides as a condition for the re-surrender that the tenant must restore the landlord any money or other consideration received by him under the document (of surrender) and S.53 (2) proviso says that if the plaintiff has received any money or other consideration under the document from the landlord, the court shall make the execution of the decree conditional on the restoration of the money or the money equivalent of such consideration with such interest as the court may deem fit. The Trial Court granted the plaintiff a decree for surrender unconditionally while the learned District Judge has provided that the plaintiff must pay to the defendant, the amount of Re. 1,448 forming portion of the consideration under Ext. PI before he got back the property. The defendant is aggrieved and hence this appeal.

(2.) The first question raised is that the plaintiff must be compelled to pay back the Rs. 1,000 also paid by the defendant under Ext. P1 and reliance is placed on the wording of S.53(2). But the money paid under the document referred to in that sub clause must have reference only to the consideration passing from the landlord in connection with the surrender by the tenant of his tenancy right. And really Rs. 1,448 represented this consideration. The provision for Rs. 1,000 for the passing of other sundry rights from the tenant to the landlord is mere accident, and cannot affect the present question. I therefore overrule this claim.

(3.) The next question is the omission by the lower court to provide for interest under the proviso. There has been some controversy before the Bar as to what this interest exactly represents. But whatever it may be there has to be a provision for interest whenever a decree in favour of the tenant in receipt of money is passed by the court. The plaintiff cannot therefore escape liability for interest. The next question is from when It is reasonable to think that the liability must run from the time when the tenant comes forward to exercise his option under the new provision and relieves himself of his own prior voluntary act of surrender. This means he has to pay interest from date of the suit. As to the rate, I think 6 percent interest is reasonable in the circumstances. In the case it is worthy of note that plaintiff came to court on 23-9-1954 and did not deposit the amount due until 24-10-1958 after the District Court decree. There can be no prejudice to him if he is directed to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 1,448 from 26.9.1954 till 24.10.1958 at 4 per cent p.a. and I order accordingly. The decree to be prepared in this court will incorporate this direction. The parties will pay and take proportionate cost in this court. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and is dismissed otherwise.