Skip to content


Karingampilly Manakkal Parameswaran Nambudripad's son, Parameswaran Numbudripad alias Narayanan Thrathar Nambudripad Vs. Subramania Iyer and Ors. (09.02.1944 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad511
AppellantKaringampilly Manakkal Parameswaran Nambudripad's son, Parameswaran Numbudripad alias Narayanan Thra
RespondentSubramania Iyer and Ors.
Excerpt:
- - 1. we are concerned in these appeals only with the estimation of the sum of money due to the appellant, the landlord, on account of the failure of his tenants, the respondents, to pay rent for the years 1115 and 1116 makaram......intended to apply to estimating damages for breach of contract. section 52 says that : 'where the rent is payable in kind, it shall be delivered at the landlord's granary.'2. that is more or less what was agreed to by the tenant in his contract (ex. p-l). by no stretch of the imagination can section 51 (2) be applied; because that sub-section only deals with cases 'where any rent is paid or is to be paid in money.' we are dealing with a case where the rent is payable in kind and not in money. where rent has to be paid in kind at a particular place and the tenant does not do so, then his landlord would be entitled to the value in money of the produce at the time of the breach. the landlord is prepared to accept the figures given in the malabar district gazette for the years of breach......
Judgment:

Horwill, J.

1. We are concerned in these appeals only with the estimation of the sum of money due to the appellant, the landlord, on account of the failure of his tenants, the respondents, to pay rent for the years 1115 and 1116 Makaram. For the greater part, the rent was payable in paddy, the quantity being 75 paras odd. Both the lower Courts held that the amount due by the tenants to the landlord is the average value of such paddy for five years prior to the breach. The difficulty has arisen over the interpretation of Section 51 (2), Malabar Tenancy Act. I have been at some pains to understand from a reference to the whole Act what this sub-section could mean; for the context does not help us. The only explanation that seems to fit in with the actual words used in the section is that Section 51 (2) lays down a commutation rate where rent, michavaram, or renewal fees has to be fixed. It seems clear to me that this sub-section could not have been intended to apply to estimating damages for breach of contract. Section 52 says that : 'Where the rent is payable in kind, it shall be delivered at the landlord's granary.'

2. That is more or less what was agreed to by the tenant in his contract (Ex. P-l). By no stretch of the imagination can Section 51 (2) be applied; because that sub-section only deals with cases 'where any rent is paid or is to be paid in money.' We are dealing with a case where the rent is payable in kind and not in money. Where rent has to be paid in kind at a particular place and the tenant does not do so, then his landlord would be entitled to the value in money of the produce at the time of the breach. The landlord is prepared to accept the figures given in the Malabar District Gazette for the years of breach. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above and the landlord given decrees for the full appeal amounts in S. A. Nos. 8 and 9 and for the appeal amounts less Re. 1-2-9 and Rs. 16-10-0 in S. A. Nos. 10 and 131 respectively. As he has not succeeded entirely, the appellant will get half his costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court. (One advocate's fee.)


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