1. The questions for consideration are:
1. Whether 2nd defendant is entitled to contract himself out of the Malabar Tenants Improvements Act where the terms of the contract are more favourable to him than the provisions of the Act relating to improvements.
2. Whether the calculation of the value of improvements according to Desa Maryada (usage of the land) mentioned in the contract should be made at the rate prevailing on the date of Ex. A. or a) the time of ejectment.
3. What is the amount claimable for improvements according to the contract Is it (a) two times the value of Kuzhikanam improvement plus twice that amount again for Vettu Kanarn or (b) twice the Kuzhikanam amount plus twice the Vettu Kanam amount or (c) two times the value of Kuzhikanam plus the value of the Kuzhikanam for Vettu Kanam (that is thrice on the whole).
2. We think that Section 19 of the Act does not prevent the tenant from claiming under a contract made even after the passing of the Act if it is more favourable to him than the Act. The general words in the short judgment in Randupur-ayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kanam I.L.R. (1908) Mad 1 that ' Section 19 precludes parties from contracting themselvas out of the Act by any contract made after 1st January 1886' do not, when taken with the facts of that case and having regard to the language of Section 19, prevent the tenant from claiming according to the contract if it is more favourable. The section only says that 'nothing in any contract made after the 1st day of January 1886 shall take away or limit the right of a tenant to make improvements and to claim compensation' according to the Act and not that nothing in any contract made after the 1st day of January 1886, shall oblige the landlord to pay more compensation than is claimable under the Act nor does it say conversely that nothing in such a contract shall enable the tenant to claim more compensation than is claimable under the Act.
3. On the 2nd question we are bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench in Kerala Vurma Valia Raja v. Ramunni (1892) 3 M.L.J. 51 and hold that the value at time of eviction has to be considered.
4. On the 3rd question we think that twice the ordinary value for Kuzhikanam, and the same amount as the ordinary value of the Kuzhikanam for Vettukanam, total thrice the amount of Kuzhikanam is claimable for both Kuzhikanam and Vettukanam taken together. In the result the compensation payable to 2nd defendant for Kuzhikanam and Vettukanam is not Rs. 1663-15-7 but thrice 1271-5-9 plus thrice 294-8-6.
(This will not affect the amount gvien separately for chamayams.)
5. The Lower Courts' decrees will be modified accordingly.
6. Time for redemption extended till six months from this date. The Appellant will get half his costs from plaintiff here and in the Lower Appellate Court. The Appeal so far as it is directed against respondents 6 to 9 is dismissed with costs.