DUDACHAN Vs. SREENIVASA KINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in the second appeal relates to the right of a Varamdar' defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) to restrain the land-owner by a decree for permanent injunction from entering therein and exercising the right of prawn fishing.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to 17 acres 70 cents of single crop paddy lands which were the subject-matter of varam agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for the years 1126 to 1134 evidenced by Exts. D1 to D9. Exts. D10 to D16 are the karars executed in favour of the defendant by which the plaintiff was given the right of prawn fishing in the Nilam during the years 1127 to 1136.

(3.) IT thus follows that a varamdar because of S. 2 (57) is not a tenant for all purposes. In this connection we will refer to the decision in Emperor v. B. H. De souza, I. L. R. (1911) 35 Bombay 412, where it was observed thus: "it is recognised in England to be a rule with regard to the effect of interpretation-Jauses of a comprehensive nature such as we have here that they are not to be taken as strictly defining what the meaning of a word must be under all circumstances, but merely as declaring that things may be comprehended within the term where the circumstances require that they should". S. 10 of Act 1 of 1964 itself shows that a varamdar has got only occupation of the land, but such occupation is no doubt considered as possession under S. 2 (45) for purposes of the Act.