Natuwath Pappu alias Valia Achan vs Kolli Vallappil Kalathile Vittil Karnavan Ravunui Nair and Another

I think the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the defendant was liable to pay the enhanced revenue. Under the general law the mortgagee

is to pay the Government revenue unless there is a contract to the contrary. Exhibit A does not evidence any contract to the effect that the burden

of enhanced revenue is to fall on the plaintiff. The authority of Krishmer v. Arapulli Iyer (1902) 14 M.L.J. 488 is invoked by the learned vakil for

the respondents, but that decision''s based on the terms of the particular document which the learned Judges had to construe in that case and

cannot help us in the construction of the mortgage deed Exhibit A.

The Subordinate Judge, while laying down the law correctly, has decided against the plaintiff on the ground that he failed to prove that enhanced

revenue was payable on account of the lands under kanom. But the plaint distinctly alleges this and the written statement, far from traversing the

allegation, seems to assume that enhanced revenue was payable on account of the land. The issues also make it clear that the fact that enhanced

revenue was payable is actually found for plaintiff and was never disputed.

That being so the learned Subordinate Judge erred in dismissing the suit on that ground.

The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and there shall be a decree for the plaintiff for Rs. 182-15-9 with interest thereon at 6 per cent;

from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of realisation. The defendant shall bear the costs throughout.