1. The following points arise for a decision in the appeal, cross objection and the civil revision.

(I) Whether the leased property is properly described by the plaintiffs in the plaint?

(II)(a) Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, the KLR Act”)?

(b) Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to fixity of tenure under the Malabar Tenancy Act (for short, “the Tenancy Act”)?

(III) Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to get compensation for improvements (allegedly) effected in the leased property under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1959 (for short, “the Tenants Improvements Act”)?

(IV) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get mesne profits and if so from which day?

(V) Whether the trial court was correct in allowing recovery of mesne profits by an amendment of the judgment and decree?

2. The appeal arises at the instance of the 2nd defendant, from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Kozhikode in O.S. No.16 of 1975 allowing recovery of possession of the plaint B schedule items from the defendants. The Cross Objection arises from that part of the judgment and decree (as it originally stood) not providing for recovery of mesne profits to the plaintiffs though a finding in that regard is made in their favour. The Civil Revision is preferred by the 2nd defendant, challenging the order dated 28.11.2001 on I.A. Nos.6658 and 6685 of 2000 in O.S. No.16 of 1975 allowing amendment of the judgment and decree and incorporating relief of recovery of mesne profits.

3. Parties are referred as the plaintiffs and the defendants as in the trail court for convenience.

4. The plaintiffs allege that the suit property belonged in jenm to the Mariveettil tarwad of the plaintiffs. While so, the 1st defendant took the said property on lease as per Ext.A1, registered deed dated 04.07.1924. As per the decree for partition in O.S. No.26 of 1945 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode the suit property and other items were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs and 14 others. The 4th plaintiff purchased right of the 14 others. Thus the plaintiffs got absolute title over the suit property. The period of lease as per Ext.A1 expired by 01.02.1974. Following that, the plaintiffs issued notice to the 1st defendant to surrender possession of the suit property to them. The plaintiffs learned that the 1st defendant has transferred its right under Ext.A1, to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that since the lease under Ext.A1 was lease of plantation, it is exempted from the provisions regarding fixity of tenure, etc., under the KLR Act. The plaintiffs are not liable to pay value of improvements to the defendants. Instead, they are entitled to get mesne profits from the suit property from 02.02.1974 but limited their claim from the date of suit, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per year or such other amount as found by the court.

5. The 1st defendant though appeared through counsel, did not file written statement.

6. The 2nd defendant filed writ statement on 12.06.1975 claiming that it does not admit title claimed by the plaintiffs over the suit property but admitting Ext.A1, lease deed in favour of the 1st defendant. It admitted that the period of lease as per Ext.A1 is 50 years from 01.02.1924. The 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the area covered by Ext.A1 as a lessee. The 1st plaintiff sold 0.33 acres in Sy. No.1054/1-3 to the Ayyappa Seva Sangham as per document No.668 of 1971. The 1st defendant conveyed its right and interest over the developed area of 264.87 acres to the 2nd defendant as per Ext.A11, registered deed dated 11.01.1973. The balance undeveloped area of 79.73 acres is vested with the Government of Kerala as per provisions of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short, “the Assignment Act”). Right of the 1st defendant as a lessee devolved on the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is entitled to fixity of tenure