Nature of right of Kanomadar.

This is a second appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of North Malabar in A.S. No. 12 of 1946, reversing the decree and judgment he learned District Munsiff of Badagara in O.S. No. 763 of 1944.

The suit property belonged in jenm to one Koiloth tarwad. This property along with another property was granted on a kanom of Rs. 1,600 to the 1st defendant’s father one Krishnan Nambudiri by the then karnavan and the other members of the Koiloth tarwad. Ex. P-1 is the marupat executed by Krishnan Nambudiri to the Koiloth tarwad. Subsequently there was a partition karar in this Koiloth tarwad by which the tarwad got divided into two tavazhis known as Koiloth and Kuningat. The properties included in the marupat Ex. P-1 were equally divided. Half the properties and half the kanom were allotted to Koiloth tavazhi and the other half to Kuningat tavazhi. The entire rent payable by the 1st defendant’s predecessor was 30 edanglis of paddy. The rent also was equally divided between the two tavazhis. This karar was in 1922. Subsequent to this karar the properties were enjoyed as per the terms of the karar. The suit property was held under the Kuningat tavazhi. Krishnan Nambudiri died and his rights passed to the 1st defendant. 1st defendant in his turn assigned the Rs. 800 kanom and other rights over this property to the 2nd defendant as per Ex. D-1 in 1941. So the 2nd defendant is the present kanari of the property.‘While so all the members of Kuningat tavazhi who became entitled to the jenm right of this property, assigned their interest in this property to the plaintiffs and one Ummerkutti, another brother of theirs. This Ummerkutti died and his rights also passed to the plaintiffs. Ex. P-2 is the assignment deed in favour of the plaintiffs and Ummerkutti.

The kanom amount standing saddled on the aforesaid nilam is more than 40 per cent. of the jenmam value thereof, in accordance with the Malabar Tenancy Act. The property mentioned in the plaint schedule, does not come within the ambit of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Yet, if it be found that the jenmam value is less than 40 per cent. of the kanom amount, since the aforesaid nilam has been purchased in jenmam right, for holding the same in plaintiffs’ possession for their direct cultivation and for enjoying the annual income therefrom, it is necessary that on that footing also the plaintiffs should secure recovery of possession of the aid nilam after eviction.

The 2nd defendant, who is the kanari, opposes the plaintiffs’ suit on two grounds, viz., firstly, that the predecessor karnavan of Kuningat tavazhi one Raman Nambiar, has agreed to renew the property to the 2nd defendant and taken a manusham of Rs. 15 from him. This agreement is said to be on 20th September, 1942. The 2nd defendant further says that Raman Nambiar passed a counterfoil receipt Ex. D-2 to him for that. According to him he is now holding the property by virtue of this agreement as evidenced by Ex. D-2. He is entitled to be in possession of the property for a further period of 12 years from 1942. The agreement was that the property was to be renewed on the same terms as Ex. P-1. The 8th defendant is the present karnavan of Kuningat tavazhi. The 2nd defendant further says that he had told the 8th defendant and also the 1st plaintiff about the agreement to renew and that the plaintiffs are thus not entitled to recover possession as they are aware of this agreement before the purchase. Secondly, it is urged in paragraph 12 of the written statement that the allegation that the kanom amount is in excess of 40 per cent. of the jenm value is not correct and that the allegation made that the nilam should be surrendered possession of for personal cultivation is also not true, that the plaintiffs are residing two miles away from the said nilam, that they are merchants dealing in stationery, that the demand made that it is necessary for direct cultivation is not a bona fide one and