LAWS(MAD)-1955-12-24

MANAYIL KRISHNAN KUTTY Vs. MANIKKATH GOVINDA MENON

Decided On December 01, 1955
Manayil Krishnan Kutty Appellant
V/S
Manikkath Govinda Menon Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the dismissal of I.A. No. 1100 of 1954 in E.P. No. 514 of 1946 in O.S. No. 92 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif of Chowghat.

(2.) I .A. No. 1100 of 1954 was a petition under Section 23 of the Malabar Tenancy Act XIV of 1930 as amended by Act VII of 1954, under Section 53 of Act XXXIII of 1951 and under Section 25(3) of Act VII of 1954 for amendment of the decree in O.S. No. 92 of 1953. The present petitioner was a defendant in the suit which was one for ejectment and recovery of possession of certain properties with arrears of rent filed by the present respondent, and in that a decree was passed, by which, upon the plaintiff depositing to the credit of the defendants the sum of Rs. 691 -1 -11 for value of improvements less Rs. 44 -1 -0 for arrears of rent payable by the defendants, the defendants do surrender possession of the properties with all improvements thereon to the plaintiff. It was further ordered and decreed that the defendants do pay the plaintiffs future rent at Rs. 37 -8 -0 and Rs. 2 -4 -7 for sundries per year from 1st Dhanu 1118, that is, December -January 1942 -43 onwards, till delivery of possession of the properties, or until the expiry of 3 years from the date of the decree whichever was earlier. It may be mentioned that in the suit itself there was no contest whatever regarding the right of the plaintiff to recover possession, as the District Munsif says that issues 1, 2 and 4 in the suit which related to the rate of rent, the plea of additional payments of rent made, and the claim for damages, were decided on special oath taken by the 2nd defendant, and that only the issue relating to value of improvements was decided and a finding recorded. Such being the case, the question now arises as to whether the petitioner is entitled to have the decree amended as prayed for. He invoked the provisions of Sub -section (3) of Section 25 of Act VII of 1954 which are in the following terms:

(3.) SECTION 53 of Act XXXIII of 1951, as amended by Section 24 of Act VII of 1954, is as follows: