Madras High Court
M.K. Ramaswami Pattar vs Gopalan Styled Kallampalli Valia Nayar ... on 20 September, 1916
Equivalent citations: (1917)32MLJ97, AIR 1917 MADRAS 78
JUDGMENT
1. The 1st plaintiff obtained a lease from the 2nd plaintiff the present Karnavan of the tarwad to which the defendants belong. It is found that the 1st plaintiff as a matter of fact, did not pay the Rs. 600 towards the consideration of the lease and the Munsif has also found that the lease was not a bona fide one. But it is contended by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar that the question of consideration is not relevant so far as his client's right to recover possession from the defendants is concerned. The 2nd plaintiff on the decree being made dismissing the suit did not appeal against the decree. It is the 1st plaintiff that appealed to the lower Court. Therefore so far as the 2nd plaintiff is concerned even supposing that the 1st plaintiff had a bona fide lease we do not think that he is entitled to oust the defendants from possession. The defendants are in possession as junior members of the tarwad under an arrangement made sometime ago, by which they were given possession of this land in lieu of maintenance to which they were entitled. It has been held in Yekkanath Eacharanunni Valia Kaimal v. Nanakkat Vasunni Elaya Kaimal (1909) I.L.R. 33 M. 436 that where there has been a bona fide arrangement of this character that arrangement is binding on the succeeding Karnavans and cannot be set aside unless for good cause. No such case is alleged in this case. Further it was ruled in S.A. No. 563 of 1905 that a suit for recovery of possession of land which has been granted in lieu of maintenance cannot be maintained unless the succeeding Karnavan seeks to set aside the arrangement and offers to make some other suitable arrangement for the maintenance of the junior members who are in possession of the land.
2. It is urged by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar that Ayling and Seshagiri Aiyar, JJ. in S.A. No. 78 of 1915 have dissented from that view. Apparently the judgment in S.A. No. 568 was brought to their notice but the learned Judges do not discuss the question and do not say that they did not agree in the view of law laid down in S.A. No. 563. They only say that the offer of maintenance is not a condition precedent to the maintainability of a suit of this character. We think that the law as laid down in S.A. No. 563 of 1905 which is in accordance with the view expressed in Yekkanath Eacharanunni Valia Kaimal v. Nanakkat Vasunni Elaya 1909) I.L.R. 33 M. 436 is reasonable and correct.
3. The 3rd point argued by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar is that the 1st plaintiff should at least have been given a decree for Wears of rent. But his main case was that the defendants were not entitled to possession and it was he that was entitled to possession under the lease. No doubt under Clause 6 of the lease (Ex. A) the 1st plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the defendants for the year 1087 in lieu of interest on Rs. 500 which is said to have been paid by him.
4. It has been found, however, by both the courts that he did not pay any such amount. That being the finding we see no force in this contention of Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar.
5. The result is, the appeal is dismissed with costs.