Skip to content


Gopalasami Naidu Vs. Lakmi Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in156Ind.Cas.825
AppellantGopalasami Naidu
RespondentLakmi Ammal
Cases Referred and Raja Ram Doss v. Gajapathi Krishna Chandra Deo Garu
Excerpt:
registration act (xvi of 1908), section 17(1)(d) - notification under proviso--lease for three years reserving rs. 400 as rent for third year only, whether compulsorily registrable. - .....'leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent'. 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 fifty rupees'. (see p. 52 of the madras registration manual, part i.) 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. 56-1-0 for all the three years, falls within the proviso. venkatasami chetty v. suppa pillai 6 ind. cas. 382 : 31 m. 90 : 8 m.l.t. 103 : (1910).....
Judgment:

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The point to decide is whether the lease deed in question requires to be registered under Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act. The lease is for a period of three 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'. 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 fifty rupees'. (See p. 52 of the Madras Registration Manual, Part I.) 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. 56-1-0 for all the three years, falls within the proviso. Venkatasami Chetty v. Suppa Pillai 6 Ind. Cas. 382 : 31 M. 90 : 8 M.L.T. 103 : (1910) M.W.N. 395. To say that the yearly rent reserved is one-third of Rs. 400 or Rs. 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 registerable.

2. Next Mr. Swaminatha Ayyar's contention that the lower Court is wrong in granting interest upon the rent must prevail in view of Nanchappa Gounden v. Vatesari Ittichathara : AIR1930Mad727 and Raja Ram Doss v. Gajapathi Krishna Chandra Deo Garu : AIR1933Mad729 .

3. In the result, in modification of the lower Court's decree, the plaintiff will have judgment for Rs. 361-4-8 with interest at 6 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 //