ATHIPATTE MANAKKAL KARNAVAN AND MANAGER KRISHNAN NAMBUDRI S SON ITTEERI NAMBUDIRI Vs. PACHILANGOTTIL NARAYANA AMMA S SON SANKUNNI NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises questions under Secs.15 and 16 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner here is the jenmi. The application filed in the lower Court was made by a number of persons claiming to represent the whole of the interest in the kanom right. The original kan9m demise was made On 10 June, 1919, under Ex. A to the tarwad of which some of the present applicants were then members. There was a partition in the tarwad of the kanomdars and various tavazhis became entitled to portions of the kanom right. Some of these tavazhis alienated their rights and the present application under Section 15 was made by all the persons interested in the kanom right whether as representing the tavazhis of the original kanomdars tarwad or as alienees from such tavazhis. The trial Court held that the application was valid and reduced the rent payable in accordance with the terms of Section 15.

(2.) Two contentions were argued on behalf of the jenmi before us. Firstly, it was contended that the application was bad in that it was a joint application made by a number of persons some of whom were alienees of portions of the land from the original kanomdars, while others were interested in the kanom right as a result of the partition. We have had to deal with a similar question in disposing of C.R.P. No. 854 of 1939 in which judgment is to be pronounced shortly and we are of opinion that an alienee of the whole of the tenant's interest in a portion of his holding is a person who is liable to pay rent in respect of that portion and provided that he is an agriculturist, is entitled to deposit the arrears of the holding for faslis 1346 and 1347 and obtain the benefits of Section 15.

(3.) A further contention raised was based on the provisions of Section 16 on the strength of which it was argued that the deposit to be made under Section 15 should include not only the rent for the two faslis named but also any arrears of land revenue paid by the landholder which the tenant was bound to pay by reason of contract. It seems to us that this contention, in the way in which it was put, has no merits. Section 16 saves the landholder's right to recover from his tenant anything which the landholder has paid which should have been paid by the tenant. But it does not make these sums part of the deposit contemplated in Section 15. All that it does is to safeguard the landholder's right to recover these sums in addition to that which is recoverable under Section 15. It does not provide a machinery for the recovery but it leaves the landholder to his ordinary right of suit.