LAWS(PVC)-1912-4-177

PUTHENPURAYIL AMMAN PARUYKYI Vs. MANGALASERI PULLIKANDI PAKRAM HAJI

Decided On April 30, 1912
PUTHENPURAYIL AMMAN PARUYKYI Appellant
V/S
MANGALASERI PULLIKANDI PAKRAM HAJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Judge bases his decision on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants are co-owners in the parambas on which the plaintiff has paid the land revenue, but the allegations in the plaint do not seem to support this view. The plaintiff in the plaint alleges that the defendants are, by a karar, which is not on the record, owners in jenini right of one of the three parambas contained in the survey field in question, and that he himself is the owner in jenmi right of the other two. The plaintiff does not claim any interest in the paramba of defendants, nor admits that the defendants have any interest in his parambas.

(2.) The District Munsif gave him time to amend his plaint and rely on the karar by which parambas were divided, but he failed to take advantage of the opportunity so given. If then, the District Judge s order is to be supported, it must be on the ground that the fact that the survey field is undivided for purposes of assessment of the land revenue upon it, brings the case within the rule established, so far as we are concerned, by the Fall Bench of this Court in Rajah of Vizianagram v. Rajah Setrucherla Somase-khararaz 26 M. 686.

(3.) Now, in that case, both Bashyam Iyengar, J., (in the referring order) and Benson, J., were inclined to hold that Sections 82 and 100 of the Transfer of Property Act were applicable and the former learned Judge points out (at page 709) that those sections would clearly have applied but for the fact that the property then in question was not strictly the "several properties of several owners." Here, in the plaint, the parambas are the several properties of several owners," and they are all charged, by reason of the Revenue Recovery Act, with the payment of a single debt, the revenue assessed on the survey field. I have no doubt that Bashyam Iyengar, J., and, I think, also Benson, J., would have held in the present case that the plaintiff is entitled to a charge by virtue of Section 82, Transfer of Property Act read with Section 100.