SUBRAMANIA IYER Vs. AMMU ALIAS MADHAVI AMMA
LAWS(KER)-1963-7-32
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 16,1963

SUBRAMANIA IYER Appellant
VERSUS
AMMU ALIAS MADHAVI AMMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DEO V. COX [REFERRED TO]
DEO D. DIXIE V. DAVIES [REFERRED TO]
MT.BEVI UMMA V. SHAMU MENON [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR DAS VS. JAGDISH CHANDRA DEO DHABAL DEB [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN LAL VS. BHAGWAN DAS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

FAKIR CHARAN DAS VS. SATCHIDANANDA RAIGURU [LAWS(ORI)-1971-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAMEED RAWTHER VS. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-1968-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
DEVAKI VS. ALAVI [LAWS(KER)-1978-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
VARGHESE VS. SIVARAMA PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-1985-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
PONNAN NADAR KRISHNAN NADAR VS. ASANARU PILLA [LAWS(KER)-1984-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
PAKRUTHEEN VAVA RAWTHER ABDUL HAMEED RAWTHER VS. RAMAN PILLAI RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-1968-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
KHADIRU MEERA RAWTHER VS. MYTHEENKUNJU MEERANKUNJU [LAWS(KER)-1971-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMED KANI VS. MEERAN KUNJU [LAWS(KER)-1971-7-8] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing his suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property with arrears of rent. The lease deed on the basis of which the suit was filed was executed by deceased sankara Panicker the husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 on 7-8-1925 in favour of the 6th defendant's karnavan, Parameshwaran namboothiri, and was of a term of three years on an annual rent of Rs. 15/ -. It is stated in the lease deed that the plaint schedule property belonged in jenm to guruvayoor Devaswom and that the Devaswom had granted in 'anubhavam' right in respect of the property to the 6th defendant's Mana. It is further stated there that the lease is being taken for the purpose of enabling the lessee to construct a shop building for carrying on his trade in Ayurvcdic drugs. The plaintiff had taken a mortgage in respect of the property on 5-4-1946 with authority to collect the arrears of rent and future rent and also to recover possession of the property from the lessee. The plaintiff's suit was to recover possession of the property, alleging that defendants had committed default in the payment of rent subsequent to 7th august 1942.
(2.)THE defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable, that they had no knowledge of the partition in the illom of the 6th defendant or of the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, and that the suit was bad for want of proper notice to quit. They also raised other contentions which are not material for the purpose of deciding this appeal.
(3.)THE main question which arose for consideration in the Courts below was whether the suit was maintainable on account of want of proper notice to quit. The trial Court held that notice to quit was unnecessary as in Ext. At there was a contract to the contrary and that even if a notice was necessary, Ext. A3 notice was sufficient to determine the lease. The judge below in appeal by the defendants came to the conclusion that the notice to quit given by the plaintiff was not proper. It took the view that the lease was from year to year and 6 months' notice expiring with the end of the year of the tenancy was essential to determine the tenancy and that Ext. A3 was not a proper notice even if the tenancy was one from month to month. In this view it dismissed the suit without considering the other points laised in the appeal. It is the correctness of this decree that is challenged in this appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.