VICAR PAUL KAKASSERI Vs. DAMODARAN ADITHIRIAPAD
LAWS(KER)-1955-10-14
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on October 21,1955

VICAR PAUL KAKASSERI Appellant
VERSUS
DAMODARAN ADITHIRIAPAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Defendants in O.S.No.734 of 1123 of the Trichur Munsiffs Court are the appellants in S.A. No.51 of 1954. They are defendants in O.S. No. 736 of 1123 also and are the appellants in S.A. No. 52 of 1954. They represent the Ollur Church. The plaintiff in both the suits is the same. He is the manager of Kalleri Thamarapilli Mana to which the properties in the two suits belong. The properties were demised on kanam to the defendant Church. The last renewal of the kanom was on 3.6.1098. Ext. I in O.S. No. 734 of 1123 is the renewal deed relating to the property which is the subject matter of that suit. Ext. I in O.S. No. 736 of 1123 is the renewal deed relating to the property involved in that suit. Plaintiff filed the two suits for recovery of arrears of michavarom, renewal fees and puravakas due under the kanom deeds and for renewal of the kanom with enhanced michavaram. The defendants deposited in court the arrears of michavaram, renewal fees and puravakas but contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to get enhanced michavarom.
(2.) The michavarom payable in respect of the property involved in O.S. No. 734 of 1123 under the renewed deed of 1098 was Rs. 15-5-5 besides 4 as. 7 ps. payable as parambupanam. The michavarom payable for the property which is the subject matter of O.S. No. 736 of 1123 was Rs. 24-4-0 besides parambupanam of 4 as. 7 ps. There was also provision in the renewed kanom deeds for payment of other puravakas. In O.S. No. 734 of 1123 the plaintiff claimed enhancement of michavaram to Rs. 70/- while in the other suit the plaintiff wanted michavarom to be enhanced to Rs. 100/-. The Trial Court enhanced michavaram to Rs. 50-14-8 for the property involved in O.S. No. 734 of 1123 and to Rs. 100/- for the other property. The appeals filed by the defendants from these decrees were dismissed by the District Court. Hence these second appeals.
(3.) The Trial Court re-settled michavaram for the properties on the basis of their present yield. It was contended for the defendants that the jenmi was not entitled to have michavaram re-settled on the basis of the yield from the kanom property at the time of the renewal of the kanom deed. S.34 of the Cochin Tenancy Act (Act XV of 1113) contains the provision relating to enhancement or reduction of pattom, as the case may be, at the time of the renewal of the kanom deed. It reads. 34. (a) The pattom may be proportionately enhanced if during the currency of the kanom or of the last renewal, as the case may be, - (1) the area of the holding actually under cultivation has increased. (2) the productive power of the land comprised in the holding has increased on account of specific causes not merely temporary of casual (3) where the land demised is paramba, the number of trees in the holding on which pattom is assessable has increased; or (4) the land being paramba, the average local price of the produce of the trees on which pattom is assessable has risen. Where reclamation or other permanent improvement was effected at the expense of the kanom tenant and has contributed to the increase in the area under cultivation, the productive power of the land or the number of assessable trees taken account of under this section, the cost of such improvement shall be determined in accordance with Chapter II of this Act and the enhancement of pattom shall be reduced by the amount of interest on such cost calculated at the same rate as on the kanom amount. (b) The pattom may be proportionately reduced, if during the currency of the kanom or of the last renewal as the case may be,- (1) the area of the holding has been diminished by causes beyond the control of the tenant, such as action of the sea, river or lake, (2) the soil of the holding has permanently deteriorated and such deterioration was not due to improper use or neglect by the tenant; (3) where the land is paramba, the number of trees in the holding on which pattom is assessable has been diminished by causes beyond the control of the tenant; or (4) the land being paramba, the average local price of the produce of the trees on which pattom is assessable has fallen. Explanation 1. Where the area comprised in the kanom is described in the kanom deed in terms of para and there is no other indication calculated to make the extent more definite, a para of land shall be taken, for all purposes of this section to secure 12 cents. Explanation 2. The trees on which pattom is assessable are the following:- Cocoanut trees, arecanut trees and jack trees.;


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