Skip to content


Gopalaswami Naidu Vs. Lakshmi Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad305
AppellantGopalaswami Naidu
RespondentLakshmi Ammal
Cases Referred and Raja Ram Das v. Krishna Chandra Deo
Excerpt:
- .....of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent.2. but under the proviso to that section, a notification has been issued exempting from its operation,any leases executed in any district (of the presidency) the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed 50 rupees: (see p. 52 of the madras 'registration mannul, part 1).3. the question is, does the present lease come within the exemption? it has been held that a lease for a term of three years, which reserves no annual rent but only provides for payment of a lump sum of rs. 56-4-0 for all the three years, falls within the proviso venkatasami chetty v. suppa pillai (1911) 34 mad 90. to say that the yearly rent reserved is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The point to decide is whether the lease deed in question requires to be registered under Section 17(1)(d), Registration Act. The lease is for a period of throe years, no rent being payable for the first two years and for the third year Rs. 400 being the rent fixed. Under Section 17(1)(d) the Registration is compulsory in respect of,

leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent.

2. But under the proviso to that section, a notification has been issued exempting from its operation,

any leases executed in any district (of the presidency) the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed 50 rupees: (See p. 52 of the Madras 'Registration Mannul, Part 1).

3. The question is, does the present lease come within the exemption? It has been held that a lease for a term of three years, which reserves no annual rent but only provides for payment of a lump sum of Rs. 56-4-0 for all the three years, falls within the proviso Venkatasami Chetty v. Suppa Pillai (1911) 34 Mad 90. To say that the yearly rent reserved is one third of Rs. 400 or 133 odd is one thing, but it is quite a different thing to say that the rent for the third year or the consolidated rent for all the three years, is Rs. 400. On a true construction of the proviso, the lease in the latter case would, in my opinion, come within the exemption. I therefore hold that the lease in question is not compulsorily registrable. Next, Mr. Swaminatha Ayyar's contention that the lower Court is wrong in granting interest upon the rent, must prevail in view of Nachappa Goundan v. Ittichathara Mannadian 1930 Mad 727 and Raja Ram Das v. Krishna Chandra Deo 1933 Mad 729. In the result, in modification of the lower Court's decree, the plaintiff will have judgment for Rs. 36;-4-8 with interest six per cent per annum from the date of plaint. I make no order as to the costs of the civil revision petition.


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