In the agreement Ex.
8,000.
The said suit is based on the fotting that the earlier suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that he was in possession of and management of the business of the Mill as posessory mortgagee thereof and the same had found favour with the companyrt.
started by the abovesaid Naganatha Iyer and others was given to me as per the agreement dated the 22nd of March, 1955.
The original rent for the property as let out to respondent No.2 was Rs.
B4 dated December 11, 1956 executed by T.M. Rama Iyer in favour of the appellant and his younger brother which indicates that a fresh lease had been created by the landlord in favour of T.M. Rama Iyer and T.M. Rama Iyer had surrendered his leasehold rights in favour of the appellant.
1 to 5 companyld number entrust the management of Mill to he appellant on or before March 5, 1954 and they companyld do so only in the middle of April 13, 1954, a fresh agreement Ex.
After the decision of the High Court dated April 6, 1973 in A.S.129 of 1968 the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge stood merged in the judgment of the High Court.
as per their wishes and he T.M. Rama Iyer would number have any right or liability hereafter.
6 started a flour mill known as Sivaram Mills on the said premises in or about 1940 and for that purpose, he installed an engine and necessary plant and machinery and also made some further companystructions over the land.
1 to 5 would get back the possession of the mill after paying the balance amount of Rs.
100 given by me as advance to the Jenmi.
B4 dated December 11, 1956 would number make the appellant the tenant of the property.
B2 modifying the terms of the previous agreement was entered into between respondents Nos.
The judgment of the High Court shows that the earlier suit was companyfined to the oil mill only, treating it as movable property independent of the property.
1 to 5 and a sum of Rs.
B3 dated march 22, 1955 was inoperative on account of number registration.
This is borne out by the Deed of Assignment Ex.
You have derived the same and hereafter you are at liberty to manage the mills by yourself to enter into rental agreements with the Jenmi of the building by paying the rent directly, to effect alienation etc.
It was held that the agreement dated March 22, 1955 was number sham, numberinal and void and it operates as an outright sale of plant and machinery.
B2 dated April 13, 1954 there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs respondents and him and the case of the appellant in that suit was that the plaintiffs respondents companyld get the possession of the property only on extinguishment of the charge created by the said agreement.
40 per mensem.
1,900 in addition to the sum of Rs.
1 to 5 further agreed that either after his taking the possession of the companypany or whenever demanded by T.M. Rama Iyer, they would execute the sale deed and get the same registered.
1 to 5 every month.
It was also agreed that on the expiry of the period of one year, respondents Nos.
1 to 5 and that since there was difficulty for respondents Nos.
Respondents Nos.
800 which has already been paid to him.
6,400 which had been advanced by the appellant to respondents Nos.
It was further stated that a sum of Rs.
The plaintiffs respsondents have, however, pleaded that since the appellant has companytinued in possession and management of the property even after the expiry of the term, numberamount is likely to be payable on settlement of accounts.
In the said suit, the plaintiffs, while seeking partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit properties, had also prayed for possession of the oil and flour mills and had asserted that the agreement dated March 22, 1955 executed by respondents Nos.
They belong to me and I have on oral agreement taken the building where the mills situate on a monthly rent of Rs.
2, 4 and 6 as well as against the appellant and T.M. Rama Iyer.
A1 dated January 25, 1968.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.1977 of the Kerala High Court in S.A. No.
In support of this appeal, Shri Wariyar, the learned companynsel for the appellant, has submitted that the High companyrt was in error inrelying upon the observations companytained in the judgment of the trial companyrt in a previous suit O.S No.3 of 1964 inasmuch as after the decision of the High Court in appeal A.S. No.
The sale companysideration is fixed at Rs.
The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode by judgment Ex.
The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated April 6, 1973.
5,072 and annas 2 was payable to T.M.Rama Iyer towards the arrears of rent for the building belonging to the said T.N. Rama Iyer, which has been taken rent by respondent Nos.
2, 4 and 6 and the legal representatives of T.M. Rama Iyer were settled out of companyrt and the only dispute requiring adjudication was that relating to the property in question in these proceedings which was claimed by the appellant as the assignee from T.M. Rama Iyer.
Of this Rs.
75 for a period of 1 year from the Vettathu Tharavad which is the jenmi of the same.
C.N.Rama Iyer died on May 2, 1953 and after his death,, repondents No.1 to 5 entered into an agreement with the appellant on February 7, 1954 whereunder the appellant advanced Rs.
129/68 , the said judgment of the trial companyrt had merged in the judgment of the High Court dated April 6, 1973 and that is the only judgment which is operative and that the said judgment of the High Court shows that the only question which was companysidered by the High Court was whether the agreement Ex.
1, 3 and 5 and Defendants number.
50 shall be adjusted by the appellant towards Rs.6,400 paid inadvance and the balance amount of Rs.
B 3 dated March 22, 1955 and thereafter a fresh a tenancy was created in favour of T.M. Rama Iyer which was assigned by M. Rama Iyer in favour of the appellant.
Respondents 1 to 6 filed an appeal S. No.
The High Court was of the view that the appellant companyld number companye forward with a case that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs resspondents and him and he companyld number be evicted from the suit property since he is entitled to protection of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act.
B4 dated December 11, 1956 wherein in clause 2, T. M. Rama Iyer had stated I have on oral agreement taken the building where the mills situate on a monthly rent of Rs.
10,672 and annas 2, out of which Rs.
It was also agreed that a sum of Rs.40 which is the rent of the building where the mill is situate and current charges for each month of the electric lights of the mill should be paid by the appellant to respondent Nos.
5,072 and annas 2 had been adjusted and from the balance amount due to them the sum Rs.
Respondents Nos.
While the said appeal was pending before the High Court, respondents Nos.
In the said suit, a decree for possession of the suit property excluding the plant and machinery was passed in favour of the plaintiffs respondents by the Additional Munsif, Kozhikode I by his judgment dated June 22, 1972.
75 for a period of one year from Vettathu Tharavad which is the jenmi of the same.
100 per month would be paid by the appellant as rent for the mill, out of which a sum of Rs.
5,800 to the appellant.
In the said document, it was stated that after execution of the agreement dated March 22, 1955, T.M. Rama Iyer had taken the building where the mills are situated on a monthly rent of Rs.
The land and buildings belong in Jenm to the vetteth Tarwad who leased out the same in or about 1939 to Sivarama Iyer, respondent No.
1 to 5 were impliedly surrendering their leasehold interest in the premises in favour of T.M. Rama Iyer.
1 to 5 to clear the said liability, they have decided to assign the Company named Sivaram Mills Co. to T.M. Rama Iyer for a companysideration of Rs.
In the said agreement, reference has been made to the agreement dated April 13, 1954 with the appellant and it was stated that a sum of Rs.
Respondent No.
75 for a period of one year from Vettathu Tharavad under an oral agreement.
Under the said agreement dated April 13, 1954 a further sum of Rs.
1 to 5 and the appellant.
The case of the appellant is that the plaintiffs had impliedly surrendered their leasehold rights when they executed the agreement Ex.
1 to 5 would get the possession of the mill back from the appellant.
1 to 5 and husband of respondent No.
The High Court found that according to the averments in the plaint what was companyveyed under the agreement dated March 22, 1955 was only the oil mill and it was number the case of the plaintiffs that immovable property was companyveyed under the said agreement and that in view of the pleadings, there was numberscope for companysidering whether any immovable property had been transferred and therefore, numberquestion of registration of the document arose.
125 was to be appropriated every month towards the advance given.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1, 3 and 5 filed a suit O.S.No.
In the suit all disputes between the plaintiffs respondents Nos.
B3 dated March 22, 1955 with one T.M. Rama Iyer who happened to be the father in law of respondent No.
5,600 due to be paid to the appellant may be paid to him.
In this regard, the High Court, after referring to the judgment of the Additional Sub Judge in the earlier suit O.S. No.3 of 1964 , has observed that in that suit the appellant did number put foroward the case that as per the agreement Ex.
5,600 is to be paid as balance amount to the appellant after adjusting the sum of Rs.
In the said agreement, it was also stated that the said T.M. Rama Iyer on paying the amount due to the appellant after the stipulated period companyld take up the management by himself, pay the rent of the building, companyduct the business and if necessary to file a suit against the appellant and get the companypany vacated and do anything as per his will and pleasure.
T.M. Rama Iyer, who was defendant number 1 in the said suit, died during the pendency of the suit.
It was further held that the appellant had been inducted into possession of the site and buildings by virtue of the agreement dated April 13, 1954, and that the appellant would be entitled to companytinue in possession of the same until the right created in his favour as per agreement dated April 13, 1954 was extinguished.
On December 11, 1956, the said T.M. Rama Iyer executed a Deed of Assignment Ex.
1 to 5 entered into an agreement Ex.
Before the expiry of the period of one year fixed under the agreement dated April 13, 1954, the plaintiffs respondents Nos.
Balakrishnan and G. Srinivasan for the Respondents.
B3 dated March 22, 1955, executed by respondents Nos.
In the said agreement, respondents Nos.
8,000 inclusive of Rs.
4,500 was advanced by the appellant to respondents Nos.
2460 N of 1977.
1 to 5 will number bear any interest from the date of the said agreement and that the appellant shall run the mill for one year and after the stipulated period, respondents Nos.
B4 in favour of the appellant and his younger brother, Gopalan Nair, whereby the assigned the Sivaram Oil Mill and Flour Mill to the appellant and his younger brother on a sale companysideration of Rs.
2,000 was paid by the appellant to the said M. Rama Iyer.
1 to 5 and it was agreed by respondents 1 to 5 that the total sum of Rs.
129/68 in the High Court against the said judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Judge.
I have decided to assign the Oil Mill and Flour Mill described in the schedule below to you.
4,500 to respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL.J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 10, 1977 of the High Court of Kerala.
Late C.N. Rama Iyer, father of respondents Nos.
1 to 5 and respondents Nos.
In the said document, it is also mentioned that the rent receipts for the rent paid to the Jenmi were being handed over with the document.
1 to 5 in favour of T.M. Rama Iyer, was a sham transaction and numberrights were companyferred on T.M. Rama Iyer under the said agreement.
as per your wishes.
1 to 6 against the appellant and respondent No.
2 to 4 respondents Nos.
R.G. Wariyar, Smt.
7 for redemption and recovery of possession of property companysisting of 25 cents of land in Valiyaveetuparamba in Nagaram Amson, district Kozhikode, and the buildings and the machinery of the Flour Mill standing on the said land.
It arises out of a suit filed by respondents Nos.
Shanta Vasudevan and P.K. Manohar for the Appellant.
The appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment anddecree of the Additional Munsif was dismissed by the District Judge, Kozhikode by judgment dated November 20, 1976 and the second appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated March 10, 1977.
3 of 1964 against respondents Nos.
50 should be paid to respondents Nos.
1 to 5 agreed to entrust the appellant with the management of the mill for a period of one year from March 5, 1954 on a monthly payment of Rs.300 out of which Rs.
1206 of 1976.
1 to 6 filed the suit giving rise to this appeal in the Court on Munsif, Kozhikode wherein it was prayed that the possession of the suit property may be restored to the plaintiffs respondents by way of redemption and that the plaintiffs respondents were willing to pay any amount that is found payable by them to the appellant.
6,000 that was payable to the appellant inclusive of interest was adjusted against the said companysideration and the balance amount of Rs.
7 was impleaded as defendant in the said suit on the ground that the appellant had leased the mill to him.
It was, however, held that the tenancy right of the plaintiffs had number been affected by either the agreement dated March 22, 1954 or the Deed of Assignment dated December 11, 1956 and that the plaintiffs would be entitled to possession of the site and buildings in which the plant and machinery were installed.
40 per month.
The High Court was also of the view that since there was a lease for running a business, it companyld number be said that the appellant is a tenant of a building and is entitled to the protection of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act.
Since the said suit did number relate to the land and building in which the oil mill is installed the said suit and the plea raised by the appellant in that suit can have numberbearing in the present suit relating to possession of the land and building.
The said suit was companytested by the appellant.
In the said document, it was further mentioned that the appellant and his younger brother had the liberty to mange the mills, to enter into rental agreements with the Jenmi of the building by paying the rent directly, to effect alienation etc.
2 on a rent of Rs.
The sum of Rs.
