PUTHIYETATH MAYAN Vs. AMMINIKANDI KRISHNAN NAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which arises in this appeal is with regard to the meaning to be given to the word "family" in Section 33 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929.

(2.) On the nth June, 1931, the appellant granted a lease of the kudiyiruppu in suit to the respondent's father, his father's two brothers, and his father's sister, who constituted a tavazhi Scetion 3(m)(1) of the Act defines "kudiyiruppu" as meaning and including the site of a residential building, the site or sites of other buildings appurtenant thereto, such other lands as are necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the residential building, and the easements attached thereto. In the year 1935 (the exact date has not been disclosed) the father purchased the interests of his two brothers in the lease. On the 6 July, 1936, he assigned his interest therein to the respondent. Sometime in 1937, the respondent purchased his aunt's interest in the lease and thereby became the sole lessee. Admittedly he became the tenant of the kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the definition of "tenant" given in Section 3(v).

(3.) In 1942, the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Quilandi for the eviction of the respondent, who thereupon filed an application under Section 33. That section reads as follows : In any suit for eviction relating wholly or in part to a kudiyiruppu, which has been in the continuous occupation of a tenant or the members of his family for ten years on the date of the institution of the said suit, such tenant shall be entitled to offer to purchase the rights in the kudiyiruppu, of the landlord who seeks to evict him, at the market price on the said date. The respondent contended that he and his father were members of the same family within the meaning of the section and consequently he was entitled to the benefit of the section. For the appellant it was said that as the father and the son were governed by the Marumakkattayam law, the son could not be regarded as a member of his father's family and that the word "family" must be construed in a restricted sense. The appellant's interpretation was accepted by the District Munsiff, but on appeal the District Judge of North Malabar held that here the word "family" had a more comprehensive meaning and would include a father and a son, whether they were governed by the Marumakkattoyam law or the Mitakshara law. The appellant appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by Mockett, J., who agreed with the District Judge. The present appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.