Achutan Nayar vs Narasimham Patter

The value of such of the thirtieth defendant''s improvements as consisted of timber trees, &c., was found to be Rs. 1,505-8-6. The Munsif

disallowed about half of this amount as the landlord''s share, on the authority of an unreported decision of this Court Govinda Menon v.

Darnodaran Nambudripad Second Appeal No. 194 of 1889 unreported. We do not find in that decision any such authority as is supposed, nor is

there anything in the Malabar Compensation for Tenants'' Improvements Act I of 1887 authorizing the distribution of any share of any improvement

to the landlord. The point that the one-half deduction that had been made in the total amount above referred to was wrong was taken in the appeal

grounds to the lower Appellate Court, but the objection was overruled by the Subordinate Judge without his noticing the true ground on which it

was made. We are of opinion that the disallowance of half the amount found due for the improvements proceeded on an erroneous view of the

law, and that there is nothing to justify it. We must, therefore, so far, allow this appeal as to direct that the sum of Rs. 757-13-9 disallowed by the

lower Courts be added to the amount decreed to the thirtieth defendant for kanom and improvements. We are not prepared to rule that the data

on which the value of the reclamation improvements was calculated were wrong in principle, and we dismiss this ground of appeal. The parties will

bear their own costs in this and the lower Appellate Court. Time for redemption is extended for three months from this date.