Sadasiva Ayyar, J.
1. The questions for consideration are:
(1) Whether second 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 improvement according to Desa Maryada (usage of the land) mentioned in the contract should be made at the rate prevailing on the date of Exhibit A or at the time of ejectment.
(3) What is the amount claimable for improvements according to the contract? Is it (a) twice the value of kuzhikanam improvement plus twice that amount again for vettukanam or (b) twice the kuzhikanam amount plus twice the vettukanam amount or (a) twice the value of kuzhikanam plus the value of the kuzhikanam for Vettukanam (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 Randupurayil Kunhisore v. Neroth Kunhi Kannan I.L.R., (1909) Mad., 1 that 'section 19 precludes parties from contracting themselves 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 says only that 'nothing in any contract made after the first 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 first 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 entitle the tenant to claim more compensation than is claimable under the Act.
3. On the second question, we are bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench in Kerala Varmah Valia Rajah v. Ramunni : (1893)3MLJ51 , and hold that the value at the time of eviction has to be considered.
4. On the third 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 second defendant for kuzhikanam and vettukanam is not Rs. 1,663-15-7 but thrice Rs. 1,271-5-9 plus thrice Rs. 294-8-6. (This will not affect the amount given separately for chamayama.)
5. The lower Courts' decrees will be modified accordingly. Time for redemption extended till six months from this date. The appellant will get half his costs from plaintiffs here and in the lower appellate court. The appeal so far as it is directed against respondents Nos. 6 to 9 is dismissed with costs.