KUTTUKKEN ERAMULLAN HAJI Vs. PAPPINISSERI CHANDROTH NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and second respondents filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Taliparamba for the redemption of a kanom on the payment of the kanom amount and the value of the improvements. The first respondent is the melcharthdar (lessee from the jenmi with power to redeem the kanom) and the second respondent is the jenmi who granted a kanom to the karnavan of the 11 respondent's tarwad on the 29 June, 1884. On 5 June, 1892, the kanomdar created a sub-kanom in favour of three persons who are not parties to the suit. In the original kanom deed, it was stipulated that the kanomdar should only be called upon to pay for improvements to the property at the rates stipulated therein. The sub-tenants of the sub-kanomdar were made parties to the suit and contended that they were entitled before ejectment to compensation on the basis of the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1900. The plaintiff-respondents maintained that the sub- tenants were only entitled to compensation at the lower rates mentioned in the kanom deed of 29 June, 1884. The District Munsif granted a decree for redemption on payment of the kanom amount, Rs. 2,500, and the value of the improvements calculated under the provisions of the Act. The plaintiff-respondents challenged the decision of the District Munsif that the Act applied in an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal, holding that the deed and not the Act governed the position. His decision meant a reduction of Rs. 8,145-9-0 in the amount of compensation payable to the tenant defendants. Thirteen of them have filed this present second appeal.

(2.) The District Munsif held that the sub-tenant defendants had no notice of the terms of the kanom deed of the 29 June, 1884 and that when they entered into possession of their lands they believed bona fide that they would be paid the value of improvements under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act when their sub-tenancies terminated. The Subordinate Judge did not question this finding of the District Munsif, but held that it should be presumed that all the subtenants had notice of the terms of the kanom deed. He also held that the stipulation that the jenmi should only pay compensation at the rates mentioned in the deed amounted to a covenant which ran with the land.

(3.) Section 19 of the Act provides that, Nothing in any contract made after the first day of January, 1886, shall take away or limit the right of a tenant to make improvements and to claim compensation for them in accordance with the provisions of this Act.