Judgment On 3rd May, 1935 the first defendant executed a kuzhikanam marupattam containing inter alia the following provisions:(1) The lease was to-be for a period of 12 years; (2) the defendant was to pay a pattam of Rs. 23 a year besides certain specified perquisites; (3) at the end of the 12 years he would surrender possession together with the improvements effected subject to payment of compensation at a fair rate; (4) in case the plaintiffs did not evict the defendant on the expiration of the 12 years but allowed him to continue in possession thereafter he would deliver half the quantity of pepper from the vines which he the defendant had grown, and of the approximate value of Rs. 5. Twelve years elapsed and the defendant continued to be in possession of the property; but he did not pay the value of the pepper as provided for in the last clause of the agreement. In consequence the plaintiffs filed a suit to recover the value of the pepper which they contended the defendants should have delivered to them and for some other reliefs. The District Munsif dismissed the claim for the value of pepper. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court in that respect and granted a decree to the plaintiffs. The defendants now appeal. Mr. Achuthan Nambiar, the learned Advocate for the Appellant, raised three contentions. The first was that the provisions in the kuzhikanam marupattam by which the first defendant agreed to deliver half the pepper from the vines that he had grown offends against section 19 of Madras Act I of 1900. His argument was that the obligation imposed by the document on the first defendant to deliver half the pepper ‘limits’ his right to make his improvements and thus involves a contravention of section 19. I am unable to read section 19 in that manner. A stipulation that after the land is improved and the revenue from it increases an enhanced rent should be paid does not ‘limit’ the right of the tenant to improve the land. The limitations contemplated by section 19 are of a very different category. The second argument of Mr. Achuthan Nambiar was that the provision is not enforceable by reason of section 5(2) of the same Act. The limitations contemplated by section 19 are of a very different category. The second argument of Mr. Achuthan Nambiar was that the provision is not enforceable by reason of section 5(2) of the same Act. According to him, on the expiration of the 12 years specified in the kuzhikanam marupattam the position of the defendant became that of a statutory tenant and he was bound to pay only the rent payable before the date on which the statutory tenancy commenced. This argument too does not commend itself to me. Before section 5(2) can apply at all, there must be a determination of the tenancy as contemplated by section 5 (1). Though in this particular document the usual period of 12 years is recited there is also an option for renewal and the document provides what rent should be paid during the renewed period. A person who thus continues to enjoy the property cannot be said to be a person continuing in possession after the determination of the tenancy. Besides, it will not be right to read the document in the manner which Mr. Achuthan Nambiar did. All the clauses in it must be taken together and as a whole and when that is done it will be perfectly manifest that section 5(2) has no application at all. The third argument of Mr. Nambiar was that under the terms of the document the tenant Was bound to pay only Rs. 5 and not, to deliver half the quantity of pepper. One answer to this is that this contention has not been raised in the pleadings at all. The other is that the language of the document does not support the contention. It does not say that the tenant would give Rs. 5 being the estimated value of the pepper but that he would deliver half the quantity of pepper grown and it is the value of this quantity that is roughly estimated at Rs. 5. All the contentions taken before me by the learned Advocate having failed, this appeal is dismissed with costs. No leave. K.C. ----- Appeal dismissed.