Skip to content


Chempathoor Raman Nambudri Vs. Nagalaseri Alias Kudalur Mankal Thuppan Nambudripad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Mad151(1); 24Ind.Cas.870
AppellantChempathoor Raman Nambudri
RespondentNagalaseri Alias Kudalur Mankal Thuppan Nambudripad and anr.
Cases ReferredThirumathur v. Swaminatha Pattar
Excerpt:
mortgage - kanom--kanomdar to pay jemni fixed quantity after deducting interest and revenue--revenue increased--liability--kanomdar. - - 3. it is admitted that, if the income should exceed the estimate, the kanomdar takes the excess, and it is reasonable to suppose that he should take the risk of increased burdens as well as increased gains......the agreed interest from the estimated income.2. we think that the kanomdar has agreed to pay a fixed rent, and that the references to the income and revenue and interest are only intended to show the manner in which this rent has been calculated.3. it is admitted that, if the income should exceed the estimate, the kanomdar takes the excess, and it is reasonable to suppose that he should take the risk of increased burdens as well as increased gains.4. in the case of panigatan kanaran v. raman nair 17 m.l.j. 517. the kanomdar was entitled to a fixed sum by way of interest and it was accordingly held that the jenmi had to bear the enhanced assessment : it is, therefore, the converse of the present cage.5. the judgment in thirumathur v. swaminatha pattar 16 ind. cas. 184. also supports.....
Judgment:

1. By the contract in this case the income of the land is taken at a fixed amount, the interest on the kanom amount is calculated, and the kanomdar has agreed to pay a fixed amount of 54 paras 8 narayams arrived at by deducting the revenue charged upon the land and the agreed interest from the estimated income.

2. We think that the kanomdar has agreed to pay a fixed rent, and that the references to the income and revenue and interest are only intended to show the manner in which this rent has been calculated.

3. It is admitted that, if the income should exceed the estimate, the kanomdar takes the excess, and it is reasonable to suppose that he should take the risk of increased burdens as well as increased gains.

4. In the case of Panigatan Kanaran v. Raman Nair 17 M.L.J. 517. the kanomdar was entitled to a fixed sum by way of interest and it was accordingly held that the jenmi had to bear the enhanced assessment : it is, therefore, the converse of the present cage.

5. The judgment in Thirumathur v. Swaminatha Pattar 16 Ind. Cas. 184. also supports this view.

6. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.


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