Case: Mamoo Vs. Ramunni

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 tarwad. On February 5,1929, Mayan and his brothers, Abubacker and Kader executed a kanom (Ext.of the suit properties in favour of Bathala Baithan. By a marupat (Ext.executed on the same day, Mayan took back the properties on lease from Baithan. Subsequently, by Ex.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 (Ext.dated April 28,1939, Abubacker obtained a surrender of the leasehold rights from Koran. On May 15,1939, Abubacker executed a kanom (Ext.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. B2) 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 kanom 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.7. The plaintiffs now appeal to this Court by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
We think that this contention is not open to Mr. Viswanatha Sastry. In the High Court, the appellants expressly conceded that Ex.was a kanom within the meaning of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960. The definition of kanom in S.2(22) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is for all practical purposes the same as the definition of kanom in S.2(18) of the Kerala Agrarian Relation Act, 1960. Having regard to the admissions made by the appellants in the High Court, it must be held that Ex.was a kanom within the meaning of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,the paper book does not disclose the amount of the stamp paid on it. Moreover, the nomenclature of the deed and the amount of the stamp paid on it, though relevant, are not conclusive on the question ofthink 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.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.was registered. It was executed for a consideration paid by defendants 1 to 5 to Baithan. It discloses an intention to transfer the kanom rights of Baithan to defendants 1 to 5; its operative words are capable of passing the title, and on its true construction, it operates as an assignment.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.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.In view of this finding, it must follow that the kanom rights under Ex.were duly vested in defendants 1 to 5, and they became the kanomdars, and consequently, they are protected from evictionunder the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.11. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider whether Ex.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.operated as aby Abubacker to Raman.