Skip to content


P.V. Janaki Vs. Kalliani Amma and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad675; 152Ind.Cas.643
AppellantP.V. Janaki
RespondentKalliani Amma and anr.
Cases ReferredMammad v. Veerarayan
Excerpt:
- .....possession, have been met with the proviso to section 1, malabar tenancy act, 1930, which though it came into force only in december of that year applied to suits instituted after 30th july 1929. but a suit was not necessary for re-entry and the six years' period of the kanom expired in june 1930. the act giving the kanomdar a right to a renewal of the kanom. did not take effect till the following december. i therefore agree with the view taken by the learned district judge and dismiss this appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Butler, J.

1. This is an appeal by a kanomdar. The terms of the kanom (14th June 19544)permitted the jenmi to re-enter on the breach of certain conditions imposed on the kanorndar, or without such breach after six years, the full term being 12. The first Court held that there had been a breach of two conditions and decreed forfeiture refusing to relieve against it. The District Judge did not consider whether there had bean a breach entailing forfeiture, but held that the six years' term having expired at the date of the appeal the jenmi was entitled to re-enter without proving a breach of the conditions. Belying on Mammad v. Veerarayan (1929) M.W.N. 165 based on 1917 Mad 198(2), he held that the Court was entitled to take into consideration events subsequent to the date of plaint, provided this could be done without prejudice to the parties and dismissed the appeal. Before me it is argued that he was wrong in doing so as, if the plaintiff had waited till the six years' period had expired, he would, if he has then sued for possession, have been met with the proviso to Section 1, Malabar Tenancy Act, 1930, which though it came into force only in December of that year applied to suits instituted after 30th July 1929. But a suit was not necessary for re-entry and the six years' period of the kanom expired in June 1930. The Act giving the kanomdar a right to a renewal of the kanom. did not take effect till the following December. I therefore agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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