Skip to content


Kolakkot Kuntambi Vydiar Vs. Pudikakandyil Parkum Muratath Mumacha and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.574
AppellantKolakkot Kuntambi Vydiar
RespondentPudikakandyil Parkum Muratath Mumacha and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - permanent lease--stipulation for payment of government revenue--increase in government revenue on re-settlement--whether tenant liable to pay the increase. - .....for decision is whether the landlord is entitled to recover from the tenant the increase in the government revenue in consequence of a fresh settlement made by government after the date of the lease. the covenant on the part of the tenant is to pay a certain sum, namely, rs. 16-2 9, to the landlord which was the revenue on the properties at the time of the lease. there is no provision in the deed that the tenant should pay the government revenue, whatever it may be, in addition to the rent fixed in the lease. he was to pay rent and a specified sum which was the revenue. on the words of the lease, it is impossible to hold that there is any covenant on the part of the tenant to pay anything more than rs. 16-2-9 on account of the revenue of the land leased. there is nothing in the plaint.....
Judgment:

1. In this case, the appellant before us is the holder of a Saswatham or permanent lease. The 'Marupat' or counterpart executed by him contains these stipulations: (2nd para).

The purapad settled to be paid by us to you hereafter annually is 1,200 seers of paddy worth Rs. 96. We agree to pay the said 1,200 seers of paddy before 30th Makaram every year and take a receipt and to pay Rs. 16-2-9, the revenue of the said properties, along with the said taram and take a receipt.' The question raised for decision is whether the landlord is entitled to recover from the tenant the increase in the Government revenue in consequence of a fresh settlement made by Government after the date of the lease. The covenant on the part of the tenant is to pay a certain sum, namely, Rs. 16-2 9, to the landlord which was the revenue on the properties at the time of the lease. There is no provision in the deed that the tenant should pay the Government revenue, whatever it may be, in addition to the rent fixed in the lease. He was to pay rent and a specified sum which was the revenue. On the words of the lease, it is impossible to hold that there is any covenant on the part of the tenant to pay anything more than Rs. 16-2-9 on account of the revenue of the land leased. There is nothing in the plaint to show that the tenant is bound to make any payment except on the covenant contained in the lease. We may also mention that, on the date of the lease, the parties must have been well aware that a re-settlement of Government revenue would soon be made, and with that anticipation before them, the covenant is specific as to what the tenant should pay op account of Government revenue. We must, therefore, hold that the tenant is not liable to pay to the jenmi the increase in the revenue. The decree of the lower Appellate Court in so far as it modifies that of the District Munsif is set aside and the District Munsif's decree is restored with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court. The time for payment of revenue will be extended to the 15th day of June 1912.


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