ABRAHAM Vs. NEELACANTAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lower appellate court, while agreeing with the finding of the Trial Court that the defendant appellant is a varamdar, found that the varam arrangement had been terminated by the filing of the suit, and therefore that the appellant is not entitled to claim fixity under S.10 of Act I of 1964. The said section reads:

(2.) It is not the case of the appellant that he was a person who by virtue of the provisions of S.6 of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act 1957, was entitled to cultivate any nilam after the 11-4-1957 and would therefore fall within the provisions of S.8 of the Act. Indeed, the case found by both the courts below is the case that was set up by the plaintiff, of the varam arrangement having been entered into on 23-3-1958. The question therefore for consideration is whether for the purpose of S.10 of the Act it should be shown that the person claiming to be a 'varamdar' fulfilled that status and answered the definition on the date of commencement of the Act. We feel that it is necessary to establish this requirement before claiming protection under the Act. The facts disclosed here are that the varam arrangement as spoken to by the plaintiff was entered into on 23-3-1958 for a period of one year. The suit itself was on 22-12-1958 for an injunction to restrain the defendant from harvesting the crops, as he was preparing to do, without giving the plaintiff his due share. On 20-1-1961, that is, after the expiry of the one year for which the varam arrangement was entered into, the suit was amended to include a prayer for recovery of possession from the defendant. There is nothing to show that the varam arrangement was continued beyond the period of one year. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the view that on the date when Act I of 1964 came into force, the varam arrangement had been terminated and the defendant appellant did not have the status of a 'varamdar'. He is therefore not entitled to the protection of S.10 of the Act. The conclusion of the lower appellate court is correct.

(3.) We dismiss this second appeal. No costs.