Varadaraja Iyengar, J.
1. In this appeal by the plaintiff landlord, the only question is as to the value payable by the defendant, lessee in respect of the commodities which had been fixed as part of the yearly dues. The provision in the kanom deed referred to the money value also when mentioning the commodities e. g. so many cocoanuts worth so much money etc. The plaintiff claimed that the money value was mentioned only for purpose of stamp duty, that the liabilities of the lessee in the contemplation of parties was primarily to provide in kind -- cocoanuts or plantain bunch etc., as the case may be and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover the market value at the rate prevailing when the liability was incurred.
The courts below held against the. plaintiff and directed payment on the basis of the money value indicated in the document and hence this appeal.
2. There was a prior suit O. S. 317 of 1120 filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the dues from 105 to 109. The calculation then adopted by the plaintiff was not on the basis now claimed because the market value then prevailing was apparently less than the value mentioned in the document. It should be taken that the plaintiff accepted the proper basis when he made that claim. If so the present item on different basis is hardly tenable.
I am not also impressed by the argument that the money value was mentioned as the equivalent of the commodity merely for purpose of the stamp duty. It must be taken to be a contemporaneous estimate in terms of money for purpose of realisation, should these happen to be a default. For, these commodities are not recoverable through court process.
It will be useful in this connection to refer also to the case In -- 'Krishnan Nair v. Padmanabhan Nair', S.A. No. 499 of 1954 reported In 1957 Ker LT (SN) 7 (A), where it was held that the question' of market price did not arise when once the kanom deed had actually mentioned the price of the plantain bunch which was here in issue.
3. There is therefore no merit in this appeal and it is therefore dismissed with costs.
4. There is also no merit in the cross appeal filed by the 1st defendant. It is also dismissedwith costs.