It may here be mentioned that while the suit of the Illom i.e. O.S. No.
112 of 1100 1925 A.D. As the suit of the illom had been finally disposed of and the title of the Illom to the lands was number established, the appellant apprehending that he might be ejected in the above L.C. Case filed a suit No.
Against that order a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
It appears that as there was numberinjunction restraining his dispossession in L.C. Case No.
An appeal against it was dismissed on September 27, 1943.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated the 2nd March 1965, of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, in A. S. No.
In this view it held that companypensation for trees which are to be dealt with under the general law cannot be decreed in favour of a mere trespasser who had numberrights therein.
but number grass on lands used for pasturage.
appellant be allowed to remove them after his dispossession.
The High Court accepted the finding of the Trial Court on issue.
While the application for registration was pending, the dispute between the Illom and the State of Travancore had reached a stage when the Illom had to institute a suit O. S. No.
It was also of the view that the claim for companypensation for trees which has to be dealt with under the general law under which a mere trespasser would have numberrights to the payment of companypensation number companyld be.
In its view these words take in what is familiarly known in law as emblements which according to Blacks.
to him was also negatived, as the Court held that the words any crop or other product raised on the land occuring in s. 9 of the Act would number include trees.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. This appeal is by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kerala which dismissed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court of Havelikkara.
Thereafter the suit filed by the Illom was dismissed on 28 6 1109 February 10, 1934 .
O.S. 156 of 1103 M.E. 1927 28 A.D. in the District Court at Quilon against the respondent to establish his right and title to the said 160 acres and in the adjoining Cherikkal lands in his possession.
CC set out the improvements made by the appellant on the lands which companyprised of a bungalow in which the appellant was residing, a number of small houses.
Another reason for disallowing the companypensation for trees given by the High Court was that the position of a trespasser whether he be a mere trespasser or a trespasser under a bona fide claim of title cannot be better than that of a tenant, and that if this is companyrect, then the appeal has to be dismissed on the short ground that there is numberprinciple of law or equity which requires the payment of companypensation in respect of trees, the ownership of which was all along, or at any rate from the dale of the trespassers dispossession, vested in the State.
It has alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff appellant was wrongfully dispossessed from 160 acres of land along with the improvements which had been effected by him and as the State had appropriated those improvements without any right or title thereto he claimed the value of those improvements.
112 of 11,00 M.E. an order was passed for dispossessing the appellant on July 24.
While this dispute was pending it appears the appellant applied to the Conservator of Forests for registration of the lands in his name, but the application was rejected on June 14, 1919 stating that the land applied for cannot be registered Ext.
a rubbers state, and a large number of other valuable trees like jack trees, mango trees, companyonut trees etc.
In that suit the appellant, after his application for registration was rejected, sought to get himself impleaded, but that application also was rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1939, Ext.
126 of 1096 January 1918 in the District Court at Quilon for a declaration of its title to those properties.
It was the appellants case that he had been in occupation of the said 160 acres of Cherikkal land unregistered dry lands in hilly tracts about which and the adjoining lands there was a dispute as to whether the same belonged to a jenmi family known as Koodalvalli Illom hereinafter called the Illom or to the Government of the erstwhile Travancore State.
an order his right to the value of those trees had to be adjudged and paid.
The appellants father and the appellant had occupied these lands, made improvement thereon by planting companyonut trees, arecanut palms, peppervines, rubber trees, jack trees, other trees, and by companystructing bungalow, huts, wells etc.
In that suit an injunction was prayed for in respect of 100 acres of the property involved in the suit, but the prayer was rejected.
R. Somnath Iyer and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent.
744 of 1967.
The rest of the claim was dismissed.
126 of 1096 M.E. was pending in the District Court, Quilon, the Government of Travancore had initiated proceedings in ejectment against the appellant by C. Case No.
Thereafter the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed against the Government on October 24, 1942.
2 lakhs and interest thereon from the date of suit and for companyts originally against the State of Travancore number the State of Kerala the respondent and three others who however were number made parties in the appeal before the High Court.
The appellant had filed a suit on October 24, 1942, for the recovery of Rs.
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, Annamma Allexander, S. K. Mehta, R. Nagaraja, Qamaruddin and Vinod Dhawan, for the appellant.
The appellant, pursuant to this order, was dispossessed from the lands and possession of these lands was given to the second defendant Nair Service Society Ltd. in August 1939.
The companytention of the appellant that the trees which are the subject matter of the appeal should have been forfeited by an order passed under s. 9 of the Act and in the absence of such.
in the bona fide belief that the lands belonged to the Illom.
It may be mentioned that in respect of the 160 acres of land of the Illom which were occupied by the appellants father and the appellant, there was a dispute between the Illom and the Travancore State from about 1848.
216 of 1961.
It was stated that according to the practice prevailing in the erstwhile State of Travancore the cultivators companyld enter into unoccupied waste lands belonging to the janmies with the object of cultivating and improving them, and as they held the lands under them by paying rent, the companysent of the Jemies to such occupation was implied.
The High Court issued a companymission for inspecting the properties and the Commissioner in his report part 13 of Ext.
206 of 1110 M.E. 1934 35 A.D. was filed in the High Court of Travancore.
Law Dictionary mean Such products of the soil as are annually planted, served and saved by manual labour, as cereals, vegetables, Grass maturing for harvest or harvested, etc.,
