The first two Courts held that the Kanartham in respect of the kanom dated February 5, 1929 exceeded 40 per cent of the value of the jenmis rights in the holding and accordingly the defendants companyld number claim any fixity of tenure and protection from eviction under Clause iii of the second proviso to Section 23 read with Section 21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 Madras Act XIV of 1929 .
A 8 , dated April 28, 1939 companyld number operate as assignment of the leasehold rights of Koran in respect of items 3, 4 and 5 of the suit properties and companysequently the kanom Ex.
A 3 , dated April 28, 1939 operated as an assignment of Korans rights to Abubacker in respect of items 3, 4 and 5 of the suit properties and the Kanom Ex.
By a deed dated April 9, 1947, defendants 7 to 13, the heirs of Mayan, assigned their rights in the suit properties to the plaintiffs.
On February 21, 1961, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 Act 4 of 1961 came into force, and the appeal came up for disposal in accordance with Section 95 of the Act.
Mr. Viswanatha Sastry companytended that the rights granted by Ex.
Both parties admitted before the High Court that the deed Ex.
The High Court also held that the deed of surrender Ex.
By a deed Ex.
Later, in November, 1962, the Kerala High Court struck down several other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional.
A 10 in respect of all the suit properties In favour of Kottiath Raman.
The plaintiffs number appeal to this Court by special leave.
A 3 were rights of a usufructuary mortgagee, and were number kanom rights.
A 8 dated April 28, 1939, Abubacker obtained a surrender of the leasehold rights from Koran.
During the pendency of the appeal to the High Court, the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 Act 1 of 1957 came into force, and the appeal was stayed under the Act.
A 5 and later Ex.
B 2 , dated February 27, 1941, operated as an assignment of the kanom rights of Baithan in favour of defendants 1 to 5.
On December 5, 1961, this Court struck down a portion of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 as unconstitutional.
B 2 , dated February 27, 1941 operates as a valid assignment of the aforesaid kanom rights by Baithan to defendants 1 to 5.
The defendants claimed protection from eviction.
The appeal was finally disposed of on July 20, 1961.
The trial Court decreed the suit.
A 3 of the suit properties in favour of Bathala Baithan.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 Act 1 of 1964 came into force.
B 2 dated February 27, 1941, defendants 1 to 5 obtained from Baithan a surrender of his kanom rights under the deed dated February 5, 1929.
By a marupat Ex.
The companytesting defendants claimed 1 that the rights granted by Mayan to Baithan under the deed Ex.
A 3 , dated February 5, 1929 are kanom rights, and 2 the deed Ex.
By a registered deed Ex.
Raman died shortly thereafter leaving defendants 1 to 5 as his heirs.
On October 4, 1947 the plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties on payment of the kanom amount payable under the kanom dated February 5, 1929.
A 4 executed on the same day, Mayan took back the properties on lease from Baithan.
A 10 , dated May 15, 1939 operated as a sub lease by Abubacker in respect of those properties.
A 10 , dated May 15, 1939 companyld number operate as a sub lease of those properties by Abubacker to Raman and the defendants companyld claim numberprotection from eviction under Section 43 of the Malabar Tenancy Act.
The High Court held that companysequently defendants 1 to 5 became the tenants of the suit properties, and were entitled to fixity of tenure and protection from eviction under the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act.
The District Court also held that the surrender deed Ex.
On second appeal, the High Court dismissed the claim for possession and mesne profits and instead, granted a decree for the michavaram due under Exs.
The first appellate Court companyfirmed the decree.
The High Court held that the deed of surrender Ex.
On February 5, 1929, Mayan and his brothers, Abubacker and Kader executed a kanom Ex.
A 3 , dated February 5, 1929 was a kanom within the meaning of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, i960.
In early 1939, Mayan tied leaving defendants 7 to 13 as his heirs.
The Courts below companycurrently held that Mayan exclusively held the rights in the suit properties acquired under the Kaivasam Panayam deed dated August 11, 1919 and Abubacker and Kader had numberright therein, the plaintiffs duly acquired the rights of Mayan under the assignment dated April 9, 1947, and Abubacker companyld riot lawfully grant kanom rights under Ex.
the third defendant died during the pendency of the suit leaving defendants 18 to 23 as her legal representatives.
Subsequently, by Ex.
A 8 and A 7.
A 7, Mayan leased items 3 to 5 of the suit properties to Koran.
A 10 to defendants 1 to 5.
On May 15, 1939, Abubacker executed a kanom Ex.
It may be numbericed that the kanom deed No.
One Thayyil Mayan came to hold the properties under a Kaivasam Panayam deed executed by the Thayyil tarwad.
S. Bachawat, J. The properties in suit belonged to the Muzhappilangad Devaswam in jenmi rights, and under the Devaswam, the Thayyil tarwad had leasehold rights.
