PARAPURATH KALLIANI AMMA Vs. ACHINNAN ALIAS MAMMAD ROWTHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that the 1 defendant is entitled to be relieved against forfeiture as a matter of course. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, though it does not in terms apply, may be taken as a correct statement of the law even in case of forfeiture not governed by it. The cases of Narayana Kamti V/s. Handu Shetty 15 M.L.J. 210, refers to certain cases in which relief will not be given. If the facts found against the 1st defendant by the Munsif are accepted, we do not think there is any case for relief. The Subordinate Judge will return findings on issues Nos. 1 to 5, on the evidence of record. Findings should be submitted within six weeks from this date, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

(2.) In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Subordinate Judge submitted the following FINDINGS.

(3.) I am asked to submit findings on Issues Nos. 1 to 5. I will consider 1 to 3 Issues separately, and 4 and 5 issues jointly. 2. 1 issue: I agree with the District Munsif that the Tank No. 6 mentioned in this issue belongs to the plaintiff. 3. 2nd issue: It cannot be said that there was valid tender of rent at all. The arrears of rent due to the plaintiff amounted to 173 paras of paddy. The 1 defendant sent to the plaintiff the value of 113 paras of paddy only. The plaintiff was not bound to accept it. Exhibits II and II-a prove the tender and the refusal. The issue is found for the plaintiff.