AMBI Vs. KUNHIKAVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original suit in this case was by a Malabar jenmi for redemption of a kanam and possession. The suit was decreed and the appellants, the defendants, have appealed on the ground that the amount awarded as compensation for improvements is too low. A point of preliminary nature has been taken and we had it argued before us without going into the merits as to the amount awarded. It is that the lower Court's procedure in the matter of the issue of a commission has been illegal and that the case will therefore have to go back for a proper procedure to be adopted.

(2.) The plaint was presented on 1 October 1917. About March 1918 the lower Court issued a commission consisting of two persons with general instructions to: render proper accounts of the improvements said to have been effected by the defendants.

(3.) That commission sent in its report about August 1918. Both parties filed objections to it. On 10 September 1918 the plaintiff put in a petition supported by an affidavit praying for the issue of a second commission. That was opposed by the defendants vakil. The defendants prayer was that the first commission should be directed to amend its report. That was opposed by the plaintiff. On 2 October, 1918 the Court passed an order on the defendants petition and directed the first commission to rectify the defects pointed out by him. On 8 October 1918 it issued a warrant to the first commission for that purpose, and on the same date it issued a separate order on the plaintiff's petition, directing the issue of a second commission as it thought that: on the grounds sot forth in the plaintiff's affidavit the issue of a fresh commission was essential.