KOODALLOR MANAKKAL NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRIPAD Vs. MACHUTHAN NAYAR (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Each of these petitions raises a question as to the effect of proviso (D) to Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938. The applicant whose case is dealt with in C.R.P. No. 1638 of 1939 is a jenmi who paid as jenmi just over Rs. 400 land revenue. But he also paid a similar sum as a kanomdar under contracts whereby the obligation to pay land revenue was undertaken by him. It does not appear that there had been any registration under Section 14 of the Malabar Land Registration Act so as to make this obligation to pay the land revenue statutory in respect of the kanom land.

(2.) The applicant in the case covered by C.R.P. No. 1835 of 1939 is a jenmi who paid as a jenmi Rs. 430 but also was liable to ryotwari assessment amounting to about Rs. 300.

(3.) The question is whether in proviso (D) the words: is a jenmi under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 who pays any sum exceeding Rs. 500 as land revenue should be taken to refer only to the land revenue paid by the jenmi on his jenmam land and not to include land revenue paid by the jenmi in respect of other lands held on other tenures. So far as C.R.P. No. 1835 is concerned, the matter is covered by a decision of King, J., in Nalupurapatti Mammad V/s. Narayana Pattar (1940) 2 M.L.J. 934, where the learned Judge held that for the purpose of proviso (D) the total payments of land revenue paid by the jenmi not only in respect of his jenmam land but also in respect of ryotwari land must be taken into consideration.