RANGA IYENGAR Vs. SIVASWAMI PANDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by him for a permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession. The suit property is described as r. S. 146/3 and 146/10, measuring 1 acre and 32 cents and 1 acre and 44 cents respectively with cocoanut trees, bamboo clusters, jack trees, neem trees and other trees. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, originally under a document Ex. A-1, dated 17-8-1957, the defendant was given the right to collect usufruct from the cocoanut trees standing upon the two survey numbers on payment of a sum of Rs. 400 and also 400 cocoanuts and 400 cocoanuts leaves, This right was conferred on the defendant only for a period of one year. Such right was given every year subsequently and the defendant executed similar documents under Exs. A-2 to A-8 each for a period of one year upto the year ending 17-8-1967. For the period subsequent to 17-8-1967, there was no document in writing. But it is admitted that the defendant had been in possession and enjoyment even subsequent thereto under similar terms and conditions. It may be mentioned that some time from the year 1966, the amount payable by the defendant in lieu of the interest granted to him was increased from Rs. 400 to Rs. 1,000 and 600 cocoanuts and 600 cocoanuts leaves. It is the case of the plaintiff that what was granted to the defendant under the document Exs. A-1 to A-8 was only a licence to cut and remove the cocoanuts in the cocoanut tope in the suit property and that neither lease in respect of the land nor any lease in respect of the cocoanut trees was granted. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that what was granted to him is a lease of the land as also the trees thereon, that it is an agricultural lease and that therefore he is entitled to the protection against eviction except as provided under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The defendant also pleaded that even assuming that the lease did not cover the land on which the cocoanut trees were standing but was only a lease of the trees with a right to cut and remove the usufruct thereon, still it is an agricultural lease. He further contended that since there was no notice terminating that lease, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession from the defendant.

(2.) BOTH the courts below held that the lease was both for the land and the trees thereon and that the defendant is not a licencee either in respect of the land or in respect of the trees and usufruct thereof. The courts below also held that since there was no valid termination of the lease, the plaintiff has no right to recover possession also. It is against these judgments and decrees of the courts below, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ex. A-1 executed by the defendant clearly shows that the lease was not of the land and it was not a lease either in respect of the land or the cocoanut trees but it only evidences the right of the defendant to cut and remove the cocoanuts for a period of one year in consideration of the payment of Rs. 400, 400 cocoanuts and 400 cocoanut leaves which in effect would only amount to a licence. Since the other documents Exhibits A-2 to A-8 are in similar terms except the last one Ex. A-8, wherein the amount of consideration was increased, it is enough if we decide the question with reference to Ex. A-1. Though it is styled as a leases deed, the document provides that in consideration of the payment of Rs. 400 and 400 cocoanuts and 400 cocoanut leaves, the defendant is entitled to cut and remove the cocoanuts and cocoanut leaves from the tope for a period of one year from 17-8-1957. The document further provided that at the end of the year, the defendant will deliver possession of the tope after cutting and removing only those ripe cocoanuts and ripe cocoanut leaves. There was a prohibition against cutting the green leaves and cocoanut trees by the defendant. The schedule to the document further showed that the right given to the defendant was only with reference to the cocoanut trees standing on the two survey numbers, viz. , r. S. 146/3 and 146/10. Though the document does not speak about the delivery of possession to the defendant, it is seen from the evidence that the property is enclosed by a fence and it has got a gate for entry and the defendant was having a lock in this gate. The question for consideration is whether the right conferred under this document amounts to either a lease of the land or a lease of the trees or it is merely a licence in respect of both.