Skip to content


Kongot Puthen Veethil Ammal Alias Devaki Amma Vs. Nagappan Nair Karnavan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1936)71MLJ103
AppellantKongot Puthen Veethil Ammal Alias Devaki Amma
RespondentNagappan Nair Karnavan and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....for improvements under madras act i of 1900. the main question in the appeal is one of revaluation with reference to clause (3) of section 6 of that act. the suit was apparently pending for a number of years and the decree, which was passed in 1929 in fixing the amount of compensation due to the tenant accepted a valuation made by a commissioner in 1926. the tenant was evicted almost immediately after the decree so that there is no question of any accretion in value between the date of the decree and the date of the eviction.2. the argument for the appellant is that because section 6(3) of the act refers to the date up to which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree, when no such date is given in the decree, the executing court is at liberty to go.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal arises out of orders in execution of a decree passed for eviction of a tenant in possession in Malabar, entitled to compensation for improvements under Madras Act I of 1900. The main question in the appeal is one of revaluation with reference to Clause (3) of Section 6 of that Act. The suit was apparently pending for a number of years and the decree, which was passed in 1929 in fixing the amount of compensation due to the tenant accepted a valuation made by a Commissioner in 1926. The tenant was evicted almost immediately after the decree so that there is no question of any accretion in value between the date of the decree and the date of the eviction.

2. The argument for the appellant is that because Section 6(3) of the Act refers to the date up to which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree, when no such date is given in the decree, the executing Court is at liberty to go behind the decree and ascertain from the evidence the date on which the valuation was actually made and allow a revaluation with reference to any increment M value between the date of the valuation and the date of eviction. It is argued that this is the practice which is in vogue in certain Courts in Malabar and I am asked to give sanction to this practice, which to my mind strikes at the root of the principles upon which the decrees of a Court are executed. When a Court's decree for eviction embodies an award for compensation for improvements and says nothing about the date on which those amounts are valued, the. natural inference is that the award concludes any claim between the parties on the date of the decree. The mere fact that Section 6(3) of the Act provides for revaluation does not give to the judgment-debtor a right to go behind the decree and by looking into the evidence to find out when the crop was last valued and reopen the whole matter by having a further valuation made immediately after the decree has been passed. It is of course open to a Court, in passing its decree to say that the value of the improvements on such and such a date is so much and that any increment in value may be worked out in execution by a revaluation. But in the absence of any such provision the amount awarded for the value of improvements in the decree must be taken to be the decision of the Court as to their value on that date.

3. [The other portions of the Judgment are omitted as unnecessary for this report.]

4. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs.

(Leave to appeal refused).


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