Narayanan Namboodiri vs Padmanabha Pillai

Madhavan Nair, J.—This second appeal is by a decree-holder, whose decree for arrears of ''thiruppuvaram'' has been held repayable in instalments under the Kerala Agricuturists Debt Relief Act, 31 of 1958. He contended that ''thiruppuvaram'' comes under the category of ''any rent or michavaram payable in respect of any land or building'' exempted from the operation of the Act. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in Kesava Iyen Ramakrishna Iyen v The Diwan of Travancore (6 T.L.J. 293) ''thiruppuvaram'' was held to be of the nature of rent. But, in the later rulings, Narayanaru Krishnaru v Peruman Sankaran (19 T.L.J. 345) and Chacko Ouseph v Parameswaran Sreedharan Moothathu (1952 KLT 677), ''thiruppuvaram'' has been held to be revenue assigned by way of a grant by the State to its holder. Sirkar v Neelakantaru Thupparu Nambooripad (26 T.L.J. 1226) traced the different considerations for such grants. It is not known from the evidence on record what was the genesis of the grant that gave rise to the decree here; and it is doubtful whether revenue assigned in consideration of a liability to pay rent will itself be rent. Whatever that be, I think the expressions ''rent'' and ''michavaram'', not having been defined in the Act, must bear their popular meanings; and they are what are payable to a landlord by a tenant under a lease or a kanom respectively. It then follows that ''thiruppuvaram'' which is the subject of the decree in this case, is not rent or michavaram, and the finding of the court below that the decree is within the purview of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, XXXI of 1958, is correct.

The second appeal fails and is dismissed. I make no order as to costs here.