KARIPPA BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM Vs. DEVASSSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions that arise in both the second appeals are the same. The appeals arise out of reference under S.33(2) read with S.30 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act made to the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Trichur. The matters relate to apportionment of compensation between the jenmi of the property on the one hand and the kanamdar and verumpattom tenants on the other. The jenmi Karippa Bhagavathy Devaswom represented by its Managing Ooralan is the appellant before me in both the appeals. It is agreed that S.48 of the Kanam Tenancy Act XXIV of 1955 applies in the matter of apportionment of the compensation money awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. This section provides for such apportionment where the jenmi and the kanam tenant cannot agree to the apportionment as between them. S.48 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act IV of 1961 read as follows:

(2.) The reference court found against the kanom tenant and in favour of the jenmi by holding that the capitalised value would be sixteen and two third times. This was reversed by the Additional District Judge's Court of Trichur which held that it would be only eight and one third times. The jenmi has come up in appeal before me in these second appeals. Some doubt arose initially as to the maintainability of this appeal in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in P. D. Palakattumala Devaswom v. Ulahannan Pylee ( 1969 KLT 275 ). It is now agreed that the appeal would lie since the 1st respondent in the appeals had resorted to the District Court and had obtained decisions in his favour. Under such circumstances an appeal would lie has been held by this Court in the decision reported in Devasia Philipose v. Venkitta Subba Iyer Harihara Iyer ( 1952 KLT 289 ).

(3.) S.85(3) of Act 4 of 1961 is a provision intended only to amend the Kanom Tenancy Act of 1955. On the repeal of Act 4 of 1961 what would happen to the amendment as effected in the Kanom Tenancy Act of 1955 is a matter no longer open to any doubt. Normally when an amending Act is repealed it does not result in the repeal of the amendment already effected in the Act which is amended by the amending Act. When a subsequent enactment amends an earlier enactment the earlier Act which is so amended has thereafter to be read as if the altered words have been written into the earlier Act "with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all". It is not as if there is any further purpose served by the amending Act, and therefore if the amending Act or any provision in the subsequent Act which serves the purpose of an amending Act is repealed, normally it does not result in the repeal of the amendment effected. This is subject to the rule that if there is an intention to the contrary either expressed or implied in the enactment which so repeals, then the amendment would also stand repealed. This principle is contained in S.5 of the General Clauses Act 1125 as amended by Kerala Act 3 of 1957. S.5 runs as follows: