Kunnigarath Kunhayen Haji vs Athilan Mayan

We are clearly of opinion that a lease of a coffee garden is not an agricultural lease within the meaning of Section 117 of the Transfer of

Property Act. It is argued that Section 108 does not apply because the money sought to be recovered is not rent and the property was not

destroyed. Looking at the plaint and the karar B, we think the relation of lessor and lessee was asserted and in fact existed. It is rent which the

plaintiff seeks to recover. It is not disputed that the whole of the plants situated in the part included in the karar was absolutely destroyed and the

2nd defendant in consequence abandoned the garden. If as a matter of fact, the land only had been the subject of the demise it might be doubtful

whether Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act applied. But that is not the case. As far as we can gather from karar B, the lease was of the

coffee plants only. Wo think therefore the Subordinate Judge is right and accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.