Skip to content


Maliyakkal Imbichi's son Mannan Vs. Chevakaran Keloth Puthiya Malikkayammal Mariyumma and Ors. (12.04.1938 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad505; (1939)1MLJ612
AppellantMaliyakkal Imbichi's son Mannan
RespondentChevakaran Keloth Puthiya Malikkayammal Mariyumma and Ors.
Excerpt:
- .....is whether the respondents 1 to 3 can claim the benefit of clause (5) of section 20 of the malabar tenancy act. the respondents are subsequent kanamdars from the jenmi and until the kuzhikanamdar attorns to them he cannot be said to hold the land under them. they would not therefore be landlords within the meaning of clause (o) of section 3 of the malabar tenancy act though they may be entitled to collect the rent payable by the kuzhikanamdar, and the benefit under clause 5 of section 20 can only be claimed by the landlord of the kuzhikanamdar. it is, in this view, unnecessary to consider whether clause 2 of section 40 of the act does not preclude the respondents from claiming the benefit of clause (5) of section 20 of the act and the view of the district judge that the kanamdars.....
Judgment:

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of an application for renewal of a kuzhikanam under Section 22 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, and the sole question for determination is whether the respondents 1 to 3 can claim the benefit of Clause (5) of Section 20 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The respondents are subsequent kanamdars from the jenmi and until the kuzhikanamdar attorns to them he cannot be said to hold the land under them. They would not therefore be landlords within the meaning of Clause (o) of Section 3 of the Malabar Tenancy Act though they may be entitled to collect the rent payable by the kuzhikanamdar, and the benefit under Clause 5 of Section 20 can only be claimed by the landlord of the kuzhikanamdar. It is, in this view, unnecessary to consider whether Clause 2 of Section 40 of the Act does not preclude the respondents from claiming the benefit of Clause (5) of Section 20 of the Act and the view of the District Judge that the kanamdars are in effect the proprietors of the land during the subsistence of the kanom is untenable. The decree of the District Judge is therefore set aside and that of the District Munsif is restored. Costs up to date will abide and follow the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //