NARAYANARU Vs. KANNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 137 of 1964 on the file of the court of Principal District munsif, Padhamanbapuram, who succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the first appellate Court is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted (as seen from the plaint which was finally amended) for redemption of an alleged othi under ex. A-2 dated 8-6-1094 M. E. The principal question that had to be considered by the courts below was whether the land in question was janmom land coming within the scope of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of 1071 M. E. as amended in 1108 M. E. or is it a Sreepandavaraga land. The consequence of the land being jenmom land will be that the appellant was not entitled to redemption and recovery of possession while if the land was Sreepandavaraga land the appellant would be entitled to recover possession thereof on redemption. The one other question that came to be considered was whether the transaction under Ex. A-2 was an irredeemable one or redeemable one. Though the learned Principal district Munsif who disposed of the suit decreed the suit as prayed for, the learned district Judge of Kanyakumari at Nagarcoil had on appeal reversed the conclusion and dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE points that arise-for consideration are (1) whether the land in question is jenmom land as defined in Jenmi and Kudiyan Act; (2) whether the transaction under Ex. A-2 was kanom and if so it was an irredeemable one or redeemable one and (3) whether the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer under Ex. A-3 functioning under the Madras Act 39 of 1964, namely the Madras (Transferred territory) Jenmikaram Payment Abolition Act 1964, holding that the land in question is not jenmom land, precluded the civil court from going into the question whether the suit land is a jenmom land or not.

(3.) AS far as the first part is concerned. I am clearly of the opinion that the contention of the appellant is absolutely untenable. It is admitted before me that ex. A-2 refers to the land only as jenmom land. If Ex. A-2 has referred to the land as jenmom land and the parties to Ex. A-2 dealt with the property on that basis with all the legal incidents attached to it, it is certainly not open to the appellant subsequently to turn round and contend that the suit land is not jenmom land. A bench of the Travancore High Court in Madan Padmanabha v. Krishna Narayanaru, (1929) 19 Tray LJ 760, while considering a similar question pointed out thus:--