EANGOLI KRISHNAN Vs. KUNIYLL SOOPI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in S.C.S. No. 118 of 1944, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Tellicherry is the petitioner. On 10th November, 1932, a marupat, Ex. P -1, was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the first defendant and one Kannan. Kannan having died, defendants 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The instrument was for a period of 12 years. Though it was called a marupat, it was also a Kanom because properties were given as security. On 10th April, 1930, Ex. P -2, a melcharth was given of the suit and other properties, and on 8th November, 1940, under Ex. P -3, the melcharthdar, sixth defendant, assigned to the plaintiff the rents due from the lessee for the years 1938 -39 and 1939 -40. On the strength of the assignment, the plaintiff filed the suit, which has given rise to the revision petition, for arrears of rent in respect of these two years.

(2.) INTER alia, a plea of limitation was raised, and it was contended that Article 110 of the Limitation Act applied and that the suit having been brought after the expiry of three years after the rents for the two respective years had accrued due was barred. The learned District Munsiff held relying on the decision in Rayarath Parkum Kurnam Kandiyil Kombilon Ammothi v. Kottekoolath Kunhi Sankaran Adiodi, (1916) 2 M.W.N. 117 that the appropriate article applicable was Article 116 and not Article no. In that decision, it was pointed out that the case of a kanom was distinct from that of an ordinary lease and a tenant holding over under the kanom tenure was not in the same position as a tenant holding over after the expiration of the ordinary lease, and consequently it was held that Article 116 was applicable and not Article no. The suits covered by Article 116 are suits for compensation for the breach of a contract in writing registered. Here Ex. P -1 is a registered marupat and hence obviously that article is applicable.

(3.) THE view upon which the lower Court has acted is therefore right. The revision petition is dismissed with costs.