Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In this case the appellant obtained a decree for enjoinment of a tenant in South Malabar and, after depositing the amount ascertained as due to the tenant for improvements under the Malabar Improvements Compensation Act, applied before the District Massif for execution of Lis degree by ejectment of the tenant from all the lauds mentioned in the dearee or, in the alterative, he added that, it the tenants claimed that any improvements had been effected subsequent to the decree in Kudiyiruppus, Parambas and hills, execution might be granted of the other properties, that is, Nilams (doable crop lands), Palliyals (single crop lands) and Nattupoyils (seed-beds).

3. The District Judge held that partial ejectment, before compensation was finally settled upon the other lands which were left in possession of the tenant, was contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Malabar Tenants Improvements Act, and he, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed the District Munsif not to grant the petitioner's prayer till he finally determined the question of valuation.

4. Section 5 of Madras Act I of 1900 provides that any tenant to whom compensation in due shall be entitled to remain in possession until ejectment in execution of a decree or order of Court, The Section does not make the payment of the compensation a condition precedent to ajectment. Section 6 (b) contemplates revaluation being calculated on the condition at the time of ejectment and provides that the decree shall be varied in accordance with such order of the Court executing the decree. It does not provide that ejectment shall be stayed until revaluation is made.

6. In the result the appeal must be allowed and the District Munsif's order will be restored with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.

Ramesam, J.

7. I will only add that, even if a plaintiff decree holder, who obtained a decree under the Act, is not entitled to eject the defendant until he pays the sum mentioned in the decree for improvements, it does not follow that, when he pays the amount be mentioned to toe de fendent or (when ha refused to take it) into Court, (he mere fact that the defend ant is asking for the farther valuation mentioned in Section 6 (3) operates as a stay of execution of the decree for ejectment, or that an order for ejectment should not be made until the (sic)onpplemental enquiry Contemplated in Section 6 (3) is made. None of the cases cited by the learned Counsel for respondents, vit., Kuthiapurayil Kannyan Baduvan v. Chsnnyan-teakath Puths purayil Alikuiti (3); Parameswara Ayyan v. Kittunni Valid Mannadiar 43 Ind. Gas. 173 : 33 M. L. J. 591. Puthiyappandikasalayil (sic)Abdulli Koya v. Kallumpurath Kanaran 43 Ind. Cas. 6 : 33 M. L. J. 463 : 6 L. W. 696; (1917) M. W. N. 822.; Rummatha Vittil Kunhi Kuthalai Hai v. Antoni Govern 19 Ind. Cas. 563 : 24 M. h. J. 478; (1913) M. W. N. 339, 13 W. L. T. 350. and Nanu Nair v. Kundan Ashtamurthi 47 Ind, Cas. 914 : (1918) M. W. N. 551 : 8 L. W. 275. support such a proposition. I agree with my learned brother in doubting the correst. ness of Chowakkaran Keloth v. Karuvalote Parkum (I) I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother.