NEELAKANTAN NAMBUDRIPAD Vs. ANANTANARAYANA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The subject matter of the appeal relates to the value of improvements awarded to defendant 2 by the decree for redemption passed in plaintiff's favour. The appellant, the jenmi, says that with respect to certain of the suit plots the learned Subordinate Judge should not have given any value for improvements, whilst with respect to certain others he says the value awarded should be reduced. The amount awarded by the decree for value of improvements is Rs. 29,193-2-5. The appeal is valued at Rs. 7,906-7-10. The respondent has filed a Memorandum of Objections in which he claims that the lower Court should have awarded him Rs. 6,000 more for the value of improvements. We will deal with the appeal and the Memorandum of Objections together.

(2.) The first item dealt with in the argument of the appellant's counsel is covered by para. 32 of the lower Court's judgment. This relates to the land called Kayyara. The learned Judge has awarded the respondent compensation for converting 1510i perukkams of paramba into double-crop land. He has arrived at the figure of 15104 by deducting from the present number of perukkams in the land namely 64661/2, 4956 perukkams which appear in the Hindubi paimaah as the perukkam extent of the lands, see Ex. X. The date of the Hindubi paimash is 1805. There is nothing on record to show that defendant 1's family was in possession of the lands at the time. Ex. X shows that at its date, about 1862, the perukkam extent of the land was 5152. Defendant l's family was in possession by this time. In our opinionthe respondent should have been awarded compensation for improvements poly for perukkams 64661/2 minus 5152, that is 13141/2 perukkams. He will thus be entitled to get 13141/2 of Ea. 1879-12-6 divides by 33221/4 instead of 15101/2 of Rs. 1,879-12-6 divided by 33221/4 awarded to him by the lower Court. According to this calculation defendant 2 will be entitled only to Rs. 744.

(3.) The next item dealt with covers para. 33 of the judgment and forms the subject matter of the appeal as well as of the Memorandum of Objections. In this paragraph two different numbers of land are referred to, lands, bearing Nos. I (ii) and III (iii). The present extent of I (ii) is 1045 perukkams and that of III (iii) is 1197 perukkams, the total extent being 2242 perukkams. The total exent of I (ii) was 1803 perukkams under Ex. X. Defendant l's family was admittedly in possession in 1862. These lands are now registered a single-crop lands. The learned Judge has not given any value for improvement with respect to this item. We think it may be presumed that the difference in the present extent and the extent Ex. X, namely 2242 minus 1803, that is 439 perukkams, may be considered to have been converted from paramba into single-crop lands and that defendant 2 should be given the value for such conversion. He will thus be entitled to get 439 by 1045 of Rs. 547.3-2. We are told that this will amount to Rs. 229. This is one of the points raised by the respondent in his Memorandum of Objections. The other land III (iii) was treated by the learned Subordinate Judge as double-crop land and compensation with respect to it was given for converting it from single-crop into double-crop land. The land is registered as single-crop land. The appellant argues that there is no evidence to show that the land was converted into double-crop land. The learned Judge relied on Ex. Ill series, punja chits, which show that a second crop was raised for some years on the land. This does not necessarily show that the land must be double-crop land. In the absence of definite evidence to prove conversion of the single-crop into double-crop land we must disallow the respondent the sum allowed by the lower Court as compensation for improvements with respect to this land. This sum we are told, is Rs. 838-1-4. But the appellant concedes in his memorandum of appeal that a sum of Rupees 100 may be given to the respondent. He will accordingly be awarded only that sum with respect to the improvement alleged to have been made on this land.