POLPARKARA MANAKKAL VIROOPAKSHAN NAMBUDRIPAD Vs. PULIPRA TARWAD KARNAVAN AND MANAGER CHEMBU NAYAR (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been posted before this Bench in consequence of a contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the Full Bench in Vedapuratti V/s. Vellabha Valiya Raja , should not be followed after the decision of the Privy Council in Raghunath Singh v. Hansraj Kunwar (1934) 67 M.L.J. 813 : L.R. 61 I.A. 362 : I.L.R. 56 All. 561 (P.C.). The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a jenmi for redemption of properties in the possession of the kanomdar. Various objections were raised of which it is necessary to refer only to those raised by issues 1 and 3.

(2.) The third issue was framed with reference to what happened in O.S. No. 670 of 1923 on the file of the Ponnani Munsiff's Court. That suit was instituted by the assignee of a melcharthdar, who is the seventeenth defendant in the present suit. A decree for possession was passed in that suit conditional on payment of a certain sum of money for compensation for the improvements effected by the tenant. The decree-holder, however, did not care to deposit the amount and take possession. Some months after the date of the decree, he sent a registered notice to the jenmi, which has been marked Ex. VI in the present case, wherein he stated that the suit had been instituted by him really at the instance of the jenmi and he accordingly called upon the jenmi to take steps to deposit the compensation amount and recover possession. We are not in a position to say if and how far the allegations in Ex. VI are true. It is, however, in evidence that the jenmi made two or three applications for extension of time to deposit the compensation amount, as he was under the impression that if he did not do so, his right might once for all be "extinguished. On two occasions extension seems to have been granted, but on the third occasion his application for further extension of time was rejected by order dated 7 September, 1925.

(3.) No reasons have been stated for the rejection. It has been contended in the Courts below and before us, on behalf of the kanomdars, that these proceedings taken in O.S. No. 670 of 1923 operate as a bar to the present suit on two grounds : (1) on the general principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Vedapuratti V/s. Vallabha Valiya Raja in view of the special provisions in the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act.