Case: Thayyil Mammo &amp; Another Vs. Kottiath Ramunni &amp; Others

1. The properties in suit belonged to the Muzhappilangad Devaswam in jenmi rights, and under the Devaswam, the Thayyil tarwad had leasehold rights. One Thayyil Mayan came to hold the properties under a Kaivasam Panayam deed executed by the Thayyil taward. On February 5, 1929, Mayan and his brothers, Abubacker and Kader executed a kanom (Ex.) of the suit properties in favour of Bathala Baithan. By a marupat (Ex.) executed on the same day, Mayan took back the properties on lease from Baithan. Subsequently, by Ex.5 and later Ex., Mayan leased items 3 to 5 of the suit properties to Koran. In early 1939, Mayan died leaving defendants 7 to 13 as his heirs. By a deed (Ex.) dated April 28, 1939, Abubacker obtained a surrender of the leasehold rights from Koran. On May 15, 1939, Abubacker executed a kanom (Ex.) in respect of all the suit properties in favour of Kottiath Raman. Raman died shortly thereafter leaving defendants 1 to 5 as his heirs. By a registered deed (Ex.) dated February 27, 1941, defendants 1 to 5 obtained from Baithan a surrender of his kanom rights under the deed dated February 5, 1929. The third defendant died during the pendency of the suit leaving defendants 18 to 23 as her legal representatives. 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 October 4, 1947 the plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties on payment of the konam amount payable under the kanom dated February 5, 1929. The defendants claimed protection from eviction. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court confirmed the decree. 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.3 and. The plaintiffs now appeal to this Court by special leave.

Reasoning:
10. In view of this finding, it must follow that the konam right under Ex.3 were duly vested in defendants 1 to 5, and they became the kanomdars, and consequently, they are protected from eviction under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 196311. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider whether Ex.8 operated as an assignment of Korans leasehold rights in respect of items 3, 4 and 5 of the suit properties in favour of Abubacker and whether Ex.0 operated as ae by Abubacker to RamanWe think that a registered instrument styled a release deed releasing the right, title and interest of the executant in any property in favour of the releasee for valuable consideration may operate as a conveyance, if the document clearly discloses an intention to effect a transfer. In the instant case, Ex.2 clearly discloses an intention to transfer all the rights of Baithan to defendants 1 to 5, and though the word "surrender" is used and though the deed is styled a release deed, it operates as an assignment.