Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Butler, J.
P.V. Janaki
Versus
Kalliani Amma and Anr.
Decided On : 10.05.1934
kanomdar - Property Law - The court held that the jenmi was entitled to re-enter the property without proving a breach of conditions after the expiration of the six-year term of the kanom, based on the interpretation of the Malabar Tenancy Act and the right to renewal of the kanom.
Fact of the Case:
The kanomdar appealed the decision of the first court, which decreed forfeiture of the property due to a breach of conditions. The District Judge held that the jenmi was entitled to re-enter the property without proving a breach of conditions after the expiration of the six-year term of the kanom.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the jenmi was entitled to re-enter the property without proving a breach of conditions after the expiration of the six-year term of the kanom, based on the interpretation of the Malabar Tenancy Act and the right to renewal of the kanom. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Issues: Interpretation of the terms of the kanom, entitlement of the jenmi to re-enter the property, consideration of events subsequent to the date of plaint, and the application of the Malabar Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jenmi was entitled to re-enter the property without proving a breach of conditions after the expiration of the six-year term of the kanom, based on the interpretation of the Malabar Tenancy Act and the right to renewal of the kanom.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Butler, J.
1. This is an appeal by a kanomdar. The terms of the kanom (14th June 19544)permitted the jenmi to re-enter on the breach of certain conditions imposed on the kanorndar, or without such breach after six years, the full term being 12. The first Court held that there had been a breach of two conditions and decreed forfeiture refusing to relieve against it. The District Judge did not consider whether there had bean a breach entailing forfeiture, but held that the six years term having expired at the date of the appeal the jenmi was entitled to re-enter without proving a breach of the conditions. Belying on Mammad v. Veerarayan (1929) M.W.N. 165 based on 1917 Mad 198(2), he held that the Court was entitled to take into consideration events subsequent to the date of plaint, provided this could be done without prejudice to the parties and dismissed the appeal. Before me it is argued that he was wrong in doing so as, if the plaintiff had waited till the six years period had expired, he would, if he has then sued for possession, have been met with the proviso to Section 1, Malabar Tenancy Act, 1930, which though it came into force only in December of that year applied to suits instituted after 30th July 1929. But a suit was not necessary for re-entry and the six years period of the kanom expired in June 1930. The Act giving the kanomdar a right to a renewal of the kanom. did not take effect till the following December. I therefore agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge and dismiss this appeal with costs.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
