THATHAMANGALAM PARAKAT SAMU MENON Vs. VENGANNAT SWAROOPAM RAJA VASUDEVA RAVI VARMA STYLED VALIA NAMBIDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has occupied more time than the importance of the points to be decided in the appeal demands. The reason is that we have to construe an Act which does not err on the side of being very clear or explicit. After listening to the arguments of Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon and after giving my best consideration to Sections 9 to 12 of Madras Act I of 1900, I am not sure that my decision is quite correct. It may be attributable to obtuseness, but one cannot help feeling that the Act is calculated to confuse even clearer minds than mine.

(2.) I shall proceed to deal with the points which have been argued. First of all, I shall take Mr. Anantha Krishna Aiyar s memorandum of objections. After the decision in Kunhallor Puthia Veettil Rayarappa v. Parkum Punnisseri Kelappa 39 Ind. Cas. 741 : 40 M. 594 : 32 M.L.J. 110 : (1917) M.W.N. 195 : 21 M.L.T. 245 : 5 L.W. 617 in all matters which are provided for by the contract, the parties are governed by it: consequently, in respect of Vettukanom for the reclaimed lands, the tenant is not entitled to anything more than what has been given in Exhibit A. By reclamation the forest has been converted into nilams or paddy fields. Till that stage is reached, the tenant is not entitled as compensation to more than Rs. 7 per plot of one para (seed) area. Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon contended that as there is nothing in the contract regarding tanks and channels, Exhibit A is not conclusive as regards his client s right to them. Mr. Anantha Krishna Aiyar did not seriously dispute this position under Section 4 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act. Tanks and channels are improvements, and when it is found that the tenant has expended labour in digging those tanks and making those channels, he is entitled to be paid compensation for that labour. The further point raised by Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon, so far as I am able to understand him, is, this: Under the contract the tenant is entitled to Rs. 7 for reclamation. Under the Act, he is entitled to the value of the labour spent by him in digging the tanks and constructing the channels. He is entitled further under Section 9 of the Act to have the tanks and channels valued by the process mentioned in Section 9. I am unable to agree with the learned Vakil, though I have come to the conclusion against him with some hesitation. On the face of it, Section 9 seems to deal with cases where, at the time of demise, the land was of some value and an additional value was imparted to it by the labour of the tenant.

(3.) That is the plain reading of the section. When the land was let under the demise Exhibit A and under the previous demises, it was of no Value to the landlord as paddy fields. Therefore, prima facie, Section 9 has no application. Moreover, Section 9, as I understand it, is intended to apply to cases where the Court has to fix the entire valuation under the Act ignoring the contract, if any, between the parties. You cannot have first a valuation under the contract and a further valuation invoking the aid of Section 9. That, to my mind, is a good answer to Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon s contention. As I have said, this conclusion is by no means free from doubt. However, that is my present impression.