Skip to content


Thrikkateeri Ullanoor Manakkal Vasudeva Nambudiri Vs. Matanna thediyil Kayyumma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad486; (1941)1MLJ220
AppellantThrikkateeri Ullanoor Manakkal Vasudeva Nambudiri
RespondentMatanna thediyil Kayyumma
Cases Referred and United Dairies Ltd. v. Public Trustee
Excerpt:
- .....a part of the demised property is liable by privity of estate to pay a proportionate part of the rent reserved under the lease, so long as he remains assignee : see leake on contracts (8th edition page 960); and united dairies ltd. v. public trustee (1923) 1 k.b. 469. though the respondent is liable on this basis to pay only proportionate michavaram to the jenmi, section 41 of the malabar tenancy act provides that:arrears of michavaram or rent due to the landlord together with interest, if any, payable on the same shall be a charge on the interest of the person from whom they are due in the holding in respect of which they are due as at the time of the creation of such interest.4. thus not only is the respondent under a liability to pay rent, founded upon privity of estate with the.....
Judgment:

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. The main question arising for determination in this revision petition is whether an assignee of part of the properties demised on kanom is entitled to the benefit of Section 15 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act in respect of the arrears of michavaram due to the jenmi. The lower Court has held that he is, and the petitioner who is the jenmi contests the validity of that conclusion.

2. The facts are briefly these. The petitioner demised five items of land on kanom to one Haji by Ex. A dated 11th December, 1907 for a sum of Rs. 136-11-5. Under this deed, the michavaram payable by the kanomdar was fixed at 50 paras and 6 narayams of paddy and one bunch of bananas worth eight annas. There was a partition in Haji's family in 1925, and three out of the five items comprised in the kanom were allotted to his son Koya subject to the payment of 50 paras and 4 annas which is practically the entire michavaram due to the jenmi. The respondent became entitled by assignment under Ex. B dated 13th March, 1937 to the interests of Koya in the three items aforesaid, and although a sum of Rs. 125 out of the consideration for the assignment was reserved with him for payment to the petitioner as arrears of michavaram due till then, he applied for relief under Section 15 of the Act making the prescribed deposit.

3. We have already held in C. R. P. No. 611 of 1939 that the assignee of the entire interest of a lessee in the property demised is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 15, but it is argued that as the respondent is an assignee of some only of the items demised in kanom and so not bound, even by privity of estate, to payment as such to the the landlord, he cannot claim such a benefit. It is however clear that under the general law which hag been applied to leases in Malabar (See Kunhi Sou v. Mulloli Chathu : (1912)23MLJ695 ) an assignee of a part of the demised property is liable by privity of estate to pay a proportionate part of the rent reserved under the lease, so long as he remains assignee : see Leake on Contracts (8th edition page 960); and United Dairies Ltd. v. Public Trustee (1923) 1 K.B. 469. Though the respondent is liable on this basis to pay only proportionate michavaram to the jenmi, Section 41 of the Malabar Tenancy Act provides that:

Arrears of michavaram or rent due to the landlord together with interest, if any, payable on the same shall be a charge on the interest of the person from whom they are due in the holding in respect of which they are due as at the time of the creation of such interest.

4. Thus not only is the respondent under a liability to pay rent, founded upon privity of estate with the jenmi, but the latter is entitled, by virtue of the provision referred to above, to recover the entire rent reserved under the lease from the properties assigned under Ex. B. The respondent is thus a person by whom rent is payable to a jenmi, and, there being no dispute that he is an agriculturist as defined in the Act, is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 15.

5. It was also contended for the petitioner that inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 125 out of the consideration for the assignment was expressly reserved with the respondent for payment to the petitioner, the respondent could not claim to have such arrears declared discharged. This contention must be rejected as the respondent's agreement with his assignor to pay the sum reserved with him to the petitioner can have no bearing upon his statutory right to have such arrears wiped out under Section 15 of the Act. It may be that the respondent, in a question with his assignor, will be bound to return to the latter the sum which he undertook to pay but did not in fact have to pay. That question does not arise here and we express no opinion upon it.

6. The revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.


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