PARVATHIYAMMAL Vs. SIVATHANU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Parvathiyammal, the 3rd defendant in O. S. 10 of 1123 (1947) against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil, dismissing the application E. A. No. 230 of 1968 which was filed for assessment of the value of improvements in Item 1 and for assessing the mesne profits regarding Item 2 of the suit properties under Section 5, clauses 1 and 3 of the Travancore Cochin compensation for Tenants Improvements Act of 1956.

(2.) TO appreciate the contention raised by the appellant, it is necessary to state briefly the relevant facts: Items 1 and 2 of the suit property belong to a village trust founded in the name of the Sastha temple of Eathamozhy village. Item 1 is about 161/2 acres of waste land and Item 2 is a building site. Item 1 was originally a waste land full of wild growth. In 1112 M. E. (1936), the trustees had entrusted the property to the defendant Arumugham Pillai for improving the said property by converting it into garden land or paddy land. The said Arumugham pillai spent considerable amount for reclamation and planted trees such as coconuts, mangoes, cashew etc. , and he also constructed buildings in the property for accommodating the watchman. He was enjoying the usufructs of the property in lieu of reclamation and improvements made by him on the land.

(3.) IN the year 1125 (M. E.) (1947), the trustees filed a suit O. S. 10 of 1123 against arumugham Pillai for recovery of items 1 and 2 on the file of the Subordinate judge, Nagarcoil. The suit was compromised and a compromise petition was filed embodying the terms of the compromise. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. By the terms of the said compromise, Arumugham Pillai was entitled to continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties in lieu of the improvements made by him on the property without paying an amount to the trust and he should deliver possession of the properties will all the improvements made by him without any objection whatsoever, excepting the standing crops on 1-121960. It was also provided in the compromise that he shall not make any further improvements in the suit properties and that if he had made further improvements, the plaintiffs would not be liable for such improvements made by the defendant. Arumugham Pillai, the defendant, did not deliver possession of the properties on 1-12-1960, as per the terms of the compromise. The plaintiffs filed e. P. 47 of 1961, against the defendant. It was contended by the defendant that the compromise decree was not executable, that the plaintiffs had not allowed the defendant to enjoy item No. 2 and that the defendant was entitled to the value of improvements under the Travancore Cochin Compensation for Tenants improvements Act, 1956 (Act X of 1956 ). The learned Subordinate Judge held that the compromise decree was not executable as the entire terms of the compromise were not recorded in the decree. He further held that item 2 was not put in possession of the defendant and that the compromise was not given full effect. Against the order of the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge held that the compromise decree was executable and remanded the petition to the Subordinate Judge for the purpose of making enquiry under Sections 5 and 8 of the Act X of 1956 for assessment of the value of improvements and to give a finding about the claim made by defendant for improvements subsequent to the date of the compromise decree or for revaluation of any improvements already valued to the extent to which the defendant was entitled to make any such claim under Section 5 (3) of the said Act.