PARVATHIYAMMAL Vs. SIVATHANU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant is the appellant. The only question in this appeal is whether the 3rd defendant would be entitled to the benefits of Section 17 of the Travancore -Cochin Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1956. There is a small history which has to be briefly stated to appreciate the question. Originally, two items of properties, one of an extent of 16 1/2 acres waste land and the other a building site, belonged to the Sastha temple of Esthamozhy village. The trustees entrusted those items to one Arumukam Pillai for improving the property and converting the same into a garden land or paddy land. Improvements were subsequently effected by Arumukam Pillai. In consideration of reclaiming and planting trees on the land and putting up a certain construction for keeping a watchman, Arumukam Pillai was enjoying the usufruct therefrom. The trustees in O.S. 10 of 1123 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, sought to recover possession. But the suit ended in a compromise decree according to which Arumukam Pillai was entitled to continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties in lieu of the improvements made by him on the properties without paying any amount to the trust and he should deliver possession of the properties with all the improvements made by him without any objection whatever, excepting the standing crops on 1 -12 -1960. One of the terms of the compromise which was embodied in the decree was that Arumukam Pillai should make no further improvement in the properties and the if he did make such improvements, the trust would not be liable therefor. At the end of the term in execution there was divergence of opinion between the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge, the latter taking the view that the compromise decree was executable. On that view, he remitted the execution petition to the Subordinate Judge for making an enquiry under Sections 5 and 8 of the Travancore -Cochin Act X of 1956 for the assessment of the value of improvements and to give a finding about the claim made by Arumukam Pillai 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 Act. There was an appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, but it failed. The Subordinate Judge accordingly found that the legal representatives of Arumukam Pillai were not entitled to the value of improvements in respect of item 1 and that they were not also entitled to mesne profits in respect of item 2 as according to him Arumukam Pillai was put in possession of Item 2 as well. On that view, the Subordinate Judge did not go into the question of assessment of improvements made in respect of Item 1 or the mesne profits in respect of Item 2. The 3rd defendant, who was one of the legal representatives of Arumukam Pillai, appealed to this Court which was disposed of by Krishnaswami Reddy, J. He held that the appellant was not entitled to the value of the improvements made subsequent to the date of the compromise decree and that therefore the Subordinate Judge was right in not going into the question of assessment of the value of improvements. The appeal under the Letters Patent is by the aggrieved 3rd defendant.

(2.) THE related section we referred to above reads: -

(3.) THE appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.