SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1936 Supreme(Mad) 357

BURN
Kannathazha Pakran – Appellant
Versus
Puthalath Amina Umma – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Burn, J.

1. There is little that I can find to add to the judgment of the learned District Munsif and the judgment of the District Judge in this case. The points taken on behalf of the appellant are the same as were taken by him in both the lower Courts. The third point depends upon the definition of Kanam in Section 3(L), Malabar Tenancy Act. In that definition it is stated that the fifth incident of the transfer described as kanam is the liability of the transferee to pay the renewal fee to the transferor if the transferee is permitted to enjoy the said property for a further period after the termination of the original period. In the present case the renewal fee calculated according to the provisions of the Act comes to less than nothing, and the contention is therefore that the transferee is not liable to pay any renewal fee at all and consequently there is no kanam. This is not a contention which I can accept. It would make the document a kanam at one time and no kanam at another time according to the varying prices of produce. It confuses the question of the liability of the transferee to pay the renewal fee with the question of the amount of renewal fee which he is li

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top