RAMACHANDRA PRABHU Vs. MAHADEVI ALIAS KUNHI THAMBURATTI STYLED AS MANAVIYATHAN VALIA THAMBURATTI OF KOZHIKKOT AMBADI KOVILAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A. Nos. 1308 and 1324 of 1944 and C.M. S.A. No. 228 of 1944. S.A. No. 1308 of 1944 has been preferred by the defendants 12 and 13 and S.A. No. 1324 of 1944 by the second defendant. The second defendant stands in the shoes of the original lessee Raricha Mooppan. Defendants 12 and 13 hold subordinate interests carved out from the original lease Ex. P-6, having become entitled thereto under several transactions; in fact, they are sub-kanomdars, the original kanom having been created in favour of one Venkataramayyar by the tenant under a deed dated 10 January, 1908.

(2.) The suit was instituted by the jenmis for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent due. The recovery of possession was sought on the ground that the tenant denied the landlord's title and there was in consequence a forfeiture of the tenancy. The District Munsiff held that the lease evidenced by Ex. P-6 dated 3 December, 1898, was governed by the Transfer of Property Act and that, as there Was no notice from the landlord showing his intention to terminate the lease which is required under Section 111(g), no forfeiture was incurred, and therefore he gave a decree only for rent. But, on appeal, the Subordinate Judge decreed the eviction finding that forfeiture has been worked out by the notice Ex. P-8, by the tenant in answer to the landlord's notice Ex. P-7. He took the view that the lease was not governed by the Transfer of Property Act, having been granted for agricultural purposes.

(3.) The second defendant, who represents the interest of the original tenants, and defendants 12 and 13 who are sub-kanomdars from him have preferred these two appeals. Mr. K. Kuttikrishna Menon stated that he was not pressing his second appeal, S.A. No. 1324 of 1944. This means that the original tenant or the person standing in his shoes is prepared to abide by the decree of the lower appellate Court holding that a forfeiture has been incurred. If the tenancy itself is forfeited in this manner, whether persons in the position of defendants 12 and 13 who hold derivative interests under the tenant by way of kanom or assignment, can be heard to say that their interests are not affected will depend upon the principle of law embodied in Section 115 of the Transfer of Property Act, though the Act will not in terms apply to this case in view of the finding of the lower Court. But it is unnecessary to pursue this point further as the objection was not seriously pressed by Mr, Govinda Menon.