JUDGMENT
1. The question in this case is whether the respondents hold certain laud on a permanent tenure, and the case has been argued with reference to the terms Of a particular document, Exhibit II. This document is a grant to the children of a certain man and contains the words as before you shall, in future also, hold” the properties described in the schedule “on anubhavam right on a rent of 159 paras of paddy worth Rs. 56-12-7. After deducting therefrom the 9 paras of paddy fixed as the anubhavam, the purappad rent is. 450 paras of paddy.” The document then declares the manner in which this net rent of 150 paras is to be applied.
2. The word anubhavam has been held to confer a permanent tenure when – used with reference to a grant of land [Theyyan Nair v. Zamorin of Calicut 27 M. 202], and we think that that decision governs the present case. The subsequent reference to a portion of rent as anubhavam may be explained by construing that part of the document as referring to a fixed allowance to be taken by the grantee in perpetuity out of the rent, notwithstanding that the gross rent may be varied from time to time upon a customary renewal of the demise. The use of the words as before you shall, in future also, hold” the properties supports the construction that the parties regarded the tenure as permanent. The case of Vythilingam Pillai v. Kuthiravattah Nair 29 M. 501; 16 M.L.J. 358; 1 M.L.T. 290 on which the appellant relies turned on the construction of a kanom in which the word anubhavam was used in connection with an amount reserved for the kanom demisee. The Court drew a distinction between cases where the tenure was anubhavam and the case before them, and holding that it was necessary to give full effect to the fact that a kanom is redeemable, decided that only the amount reserved was anubhavam. In this case it is true that the amount reserved is also described as anubhavam, but we are nonetheless bound to give effect to the grant of the lands as anubhavam and must hold the tenure to be perpetual.
3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.
