CHANDU Vs. KUNHAMMA AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the decision of Madhavan Nair, J., in S. A. 1337/61. The second appeal arose from a suit for redemption of a kanom. The suit was allowed by the Munsiff of Kozhikode on the ground that the plaintiff bona fide required the property for his own use and under the law then in force redemption was possible on such a ground. But in appeal the decision was reversed by the District Judge of Kozhikode observing that under Act 4/61 which governs such transactions, no redemption can be had. The learned Single Judge has set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remanded the suit to the court of first instance so as to enable the plaintiff to move for resumption under the Act (Act 4/61), later superseded by Act 1/64.

(2.) The right of resumption of the landlord has undoubtedly to be adjudged under the provisions of Act 1/64. Under S.132 of Act 1/64, all suits, appeals, revisions, reviews and proceedings in execution of decree stayed by the repealed enactments. Proclamation XVI of 1122 (Cochin), Proclamation VI of 1124 (Cochin), Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1963 etc. are to be disposed of by the courts in which they are pending at the commencement of the present Act, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Therefore, the appeal is to be disposed of under the provisions of Act 1/64, and under that Act no landlord is entitled to evict his tenants from the holdings, but the landlord may in certain cases resume his holding under S.14 to 22 of the Act and regarding this right S.132(3)(c)(i) would provide,