Karthiyani vs Valia Pothi Amma Raja Avl.

Kunhi Raman, C.J.—This is an appeal filed by deft. 18 from whom items 2, 3 & 5 in the schedule to the decree were delivered over to the resp. D. H. At the time of delivery there existed certain crops which were raised by the applt. In item 2 applt. had only ploughed for the purpose of cultivation. In item 3, the applt. had raised a sugar-cane crop & in item 5, a tapioca crop. The applts. claim for getting the costs of these crops was disallowed by the Ct. below on the ground that R. 290 of the Civil Courts'' Guide stood in the way of the grant of the cost thereof.

The language of R. 290 is not so intractable as to compel us to disallow the cost of the work & the crops raised by the applt. whose benefit the D. H got by taking delivery of the land with the crops. Rule 290 does not prohibit grant of the value of crops raised in cases where the crops are not paddy crops. The provision of the rule for valuing the crop at so many paras, lends colour to the contention that it is only for paddy crops that compensation can be given. The rule however starts by providing for costs where delivery of possession of paddy land is given & there are crops therein without referring to the crops as paddy crops.

Apart from that rule, we consider that it is only equitable & in accordance with practice that a D. H, taking possession of properties (on which the J. D. or other party in possession has raised, in the ordinary course, some crops or done some work for cultivation whose advantage the D. H gets shall be directed or made liable to pay the cost of the crops & the work.

The lower Ct. did not consider the evidence on the question of the amount to be awarded to deft.-applt. 18 because the lower Ct. found that in law the applt. is not entitled to any value. The learned advocates appearing for both the parties Lere were agreeable that, in view of our finding in favour of the applt. as regards the applt''s right to get the value of crops, we may peruse the evidence & decide the quantum of compensation payable. Accordingly we wore taken through the evidence which consisted of the Commr.''s report as also certain witnesses examined on either side. On a consideration of alt the evidence in the case, we are inclined to think that a total of Rs. 350 would left fair compensation to be awarded to the applt. for all the crops & works done by hot in the properties & we award accordingly.

We are told that the resp. deposited about a thousand rupees in the Ct. below before taking delivery, of the properties. We direct that the amount of Rs 350 which we assess as the cost of seed & labour of the applt. shall be paid out to the applt. from out of that deposit together with the costs of this appeal which we allow.