AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Somayya, J.—In this case the rent is payable wholly in paddy under the marupat Ex. P-1. It is the counter part executed by the tenant.
Pattom is the lease executed by the landholder and the marupat is the counter part executed by the tenant. The only question is whether in fixing the
money value of the quantity of paddy admitted to be due, the price is to be fixed at the market rate on the due dates, or whether the average rent
for the previous five years u/s 51, Clause 2 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1930, is to be taken. The trial Court held that the market value can be
claimed by the plaintiff and accordingly gave a decree on that basis. In appeal the District Judge held that the standard fixed u/s 51, Clause 2
should be applied. The sole question in this second appeal is which of the views is right.
On a reading of Section 51, Clause 2, it appears to me the sub-section does not apply at all to a case where the rent is wholly payable in kind.
The section says that:
where rent.... is paid or is to be paid in money, in whole or in part, then the paddy.... shall be valued..... at the average market price of the previous
five years as published under Sub-section (1).
I have left out the other words which do not apply to this case. It seems to me that where rent is not paid or is not to be paid in money, either in
whole or in part, the latter portion of the sub-section does not apply. It is only where the rent is paid or is to be paid in money, in whole or in part,
then as regards the rest of the rent which is payable in paddy, cocoanuts, arecanuts, or pepper, the rate as fixed in Sub-section (2) of Section 51
has to be applied. In the present case the rent is wholly payable in kind. I, therefore, hold that the view taken by the trial Court is right. A decision
of Mr. Justice Horwill in Parameswaran Nambudripad alias Narayanan Thrathar Nambudripad v. Subramania Iyer (1944) 2 M.L.J. 84 is brought
to my notice in which the rent was to be paid for the great part in kind and only a small portion in money. Even in such a case the learned Judge
held that Section 51, Clause 2 does not apply. Mr. P. Govinda Menon, the learned advocate for the respondent, challenges the correctness of it,
but it is unnecessary to go into this question because in the present case the rent is payable wholly in kind.
The second appeal is allowed and the decree of the District Munsiff is restored with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.
(Leave granted.)