Chennama Naidu and Others vs Venkatammal

Devadoss, J.—The only point urged in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance secured under Ex. A at the

rate at which paddy was selling on the date of the plaint. Both the Courts have given a decree for the amount ,of paddy payable to her at the rate

prevailing on the date of the plaint. Mr. Ramanath Shenai, on behalf of the appellants, urges that Ex. A provides for payment of money in lieu of the

payment of maintenance in kind, and his client is entitled to pay maintenance; at the rate mentioned in Ex. A. On the other side, it is contended that

the document provides for payment of maintenance in kind and that the value of the paddy is given only for the purpose of ascertaining the value

for registration purpose and that there is no option to the defendant to pay maintenance in money at the rate mentioned in the document. The recital

in the document is "" to deliver that paddy worth Rs. 39 for'' every year, 3 podies of Sambali paddy without moisture and chaff before 17th

November every year according to measure by which paddy is measured for sale. On failure to give every year, with interest at the rate of 4

vallams for every year on the outstanding paddy from the date of default. Lower down there is this clause: "" If at any time the giving of maintenance

is delayed, at the rate of 13 only for every podi, money should be collected or sued for."" But for the latter clause i would be inclined to hold that

the defendant is bound to deliver paddy according to the document and in default of delivering paddy he; should pay the value of the paddy at the

market rate. The concluding portion of the document is emphatic in its terms and gives an option to the defendant to pay at the rate of 13 for every

podi. If the value of the paddy is given either for the purpose of registration or for some other purpose no doubt the defendant could not escape his

liability to deliver paddy, and on default to pay the value of the paddy at the market rate. The respondent relies upon a number of cases in support

of this contention that the defendant is bound to deliver paddy and in default to pay the value of the paddy at the market rate for wherever the

claim is made. Only recently I decided in S.A. No. 460 of 1922 following the decision of a Bench of this Court that a lessee was bound to pay the

value of the paddy at the rate ruling on the date of the plaint. But the terms of that document are not the same as the terms of the document in this

case. Here the concluding portion of the document which I have already extracted is emphatic and it gives the defendant an option to pay

maintenance in kind or in cash at the rate mentioned in the document. There are a number of decisions on this point and they are not at all

reconcilable. The difficulty has arisen from the fact that Courts have tried to interpret one document in the light of recitals of another. Where there is

no general principle governing the interpretation of the document I think each document should be interpreted as it reads. It is not proper to go

outside the document to try to find out what the intention of the parties to the document was in fixing a certain amount as the value of the grain rent

payable. In a recent case reported in Asutosh Mukerjee v. Haran Chandra Mukerjee ILR (1919) C. 133. the learned Chief Justice and two other

learned Judges have held that it was not the invariable rule that the rent should be paid in kind, and that each document should be interpreted

according to its tenor. In that case reference was made to a number of previous cases and also to an unreported decision of Maclean, C.J. and

Banerji, J. The principle) deducible from all these cases is that it is not an invariable rule that where a lessee or other person undertakes to pay rent

or maintenance or any such thing in kind he should always pay it in kind. Where an option is given to the promisee to pay in kind or in money and if

the amount payable in money is fixed in the document, Courts should not go behind the document and say that the intention of the parties was to

pay only in kind. It is unnecessary to discuss the cases to which my attention was drawn by the learned Vakil for the respondent. I think the

document is clear in its terms and I must give effect to its terms. In the view I have taken I think the judgment of the Court below cannot be

supported.

It is also vehemently urged by the learned Vakil for the respondent that this is a maintenance arrangement and the plaintiff is entitled to have the

maintenance paid in kind as it is required for her food. But that would not take away the force of the clause at the end of the document. I therefore

consider that the decrees of the Lower Courts on this point is wrong. I allow the plaintiff the amount mentioned in Ex. A as the value of the paddy

which was payable on default of payment of the 3 podies of paddy. The plaintiff will have a decree for Rs. 39 with interest at the rate mentioned in

the document till the date of deposit. In the circumstances I do not think I should allow costs to the appellant. Both parties will bear their own costs

in this Court.