Issue
Reasoning
Decision
Ullattuthedi Choyi
v.
Secretary Of State For India In Council (through The Collector Of Malabar)
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Second Appeal No. 1446 Of 1920 | 10-05-1921
[1] This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the District Judge of Calicut reversing the judgment of the District Munsif and granting the plaintiff the Government a decree for ejectment without payment for improvements instead of a decree for ejecting defendant on payment for improvements.
[2] The District Judge has held that the lease sued on is a Crown grant within the meaning of the Crown Grants Act and in that conclusion, in our opinion, he was right. Under Section 3 of the Crown Grants Act of 1895 the grant is to " take effect according to its tenor any, rule of law, statute or enactment of the legislature to the contrary notwithstanding." In our opinion it is not possible to have clearer words than these. The grant in question contains a reservation of the right to terminate the tenancy on six months notice, and there is an express covenant by the lessee to surrender. It is now said that he cannot be evicted until he has received compensation under the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act. To allow such a provision of that Act to take effect would prevent the Crown grant in question from taking effect according to its tenor. We entirely agree with the decision on this point in Kalliyal Moosa Kutti v. The Secretary of State (1919) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 65 and deem it unnecessary to repeat the reasons which are given for that decision.
[3] The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
[2] The District Judge has held that the lease sued on is a Crown grant within the meaning of the Crown Grants Act and in that conclusion, in our opinion, he was right. Under Section 3 of the Crown Grants Act of 1895 the grant is to " take effect according to its tenor any, rule of law, statute or enactment of the legislature to the contrary notwithstanding." In our opinion it is not possible to have clearer words than these. The grant in question contains a reservation of the right to terminate the tenancy on six months notice, and there is an express covenant by the lessee to surrender. It is now said that he cannot be evicted until he has received compensation under the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act. To allow such a provision of that Act to take effect would prevent the Crown grant in question from taking effect according to its tenor. We entirely agree with the decision on this point in Kalliyal Moosa Kutti v. The Secretary of State (1919) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 65 and deem it unnecessary to repeat the reasons which are given for that decision.
[3] The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Advocates List
For the Appellant Messrs. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar, K.P. Ramakrishna Aiyar, Advocates. For the Respondents C. Madhavan Nair, Government Pleader.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN WALLIS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN
Eq Citation
(1921) 41 MLJ 494
1921 MWN 694
69 IND. CAS. 475
AIR 1921 MAD 409
LQ/MadHC/1921/135
HeadNote
Constitution of India — Arts. 299 and 300 — Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1960 (19 of 1960) — S. 11(1) — Crown grant — Ejectment of tenant — Ejectment of tenant under Crown grant — Whether provisions of 1960 Act applicable — Held, no — Crown Grants Act, 1895 S. 3 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 20 R. 1
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
