frying deep in oil - the tasty, crunchy Appalam !!

முக்கிய முன் குறிப்பு :  படங்களை பார்த்து விட்டு - நீங்கள் வீரமாக அப்பளத்தை கொதிக்கும் எண்ணையில் இருந்து லாகவமாக சுழற்றி எடுக்க முயல வேண்டாமே !! 

நீங்களும்  ஒரு  அப்பள பிரியரா !! How good a cook are you ? – perhaps the simple looking task is frying Appalam !! – it needs a big deep pan with so much of oil – have seen some experts fry them with bare hands – half cut appalam being directly immersed in hot oil and being taken out is an art to watch !!   In Exhibitions, the big (really big) fried pappad (Delhi pappad more of a vadam) is very popular !! 

உணவு பிரியர்கள் - தினம் சாப்பாட்டிலும், முக்கிய கல்யாண விருந்திலும் விரும்பி உண்பது - 'அப்பளம்'.  ஏராளமான எண்ணையுடன், பெரிதாக பொரித்து வைத்தால், நாம் கட்டுப்பாடு இல்லாமல் உன்ன தோன்றும் !  - இது   உளுந்தினால் செய்யப்பட்ட மொறுமொறுப்பான உணவு.  அப்பளம் உளுந்துமாவு கொண்டு வட்டமாக எண்ணையில் பொறிக்கப்படுகின்றது !   அடுப்பில் நேரடியாகப் சுட்டும் சாப்பிடலாம்.  வடாம் சற்று வேறு !  - என்போன்ற சிலருக்கு வடாம் (வடகம்) மேல் அப்பளத்தை விட கொள்ளை பிரியம் !!  

A papad is an Indian deep fried dough of black gram bean flour, either fried or cooked with dry heat (flipped over an open flame) until crunchy. Papad is likely derived from the Sanskrit word parpaṭa (पर्पट), meaning a flattened disc. 

Gleaning some old records read about this interesting judgement of Madras High Court dating back to Oct 1948 [ K. Krishna Nair vs Valliammal]   

The petitioner was living in a house in Madras City formerly owned by one Baggiammal, wife of one Babu Mudaliar, from whom the respondent has subsequently bought it for residential-purposes. The respondent got an order from the Additional Rent Controller, Madras, in 1947, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the  premises.  Before the' Additional Rent Controller the petitioner  contended that a portion of the house was used by him for non-residential purposes, viz., for making appalams, or pappadams, and that, therefore, the Additional Rent Controller could not order eviction under the Act since the respondent wanted the house only for residential purposes.  

The Additional Rent Controller  remarked as follows in the course of his order:  a premises is residential or not residential according to the main purpose for which it was taken. It is not the respondent's case that he took the premises or portion of it for making appalams. Respondent admits that even the portion of the house used for making appalams is used as sleeping apartments during the night.  

The petitioner took the matter in appeal to the Small Causes Court, Madras. The Second Judge of the Small Causes Court, who heard the appeal, disbelieved the petitioner's contention that a portion of the house was used for non-residential purposes, and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition before High Court.  

The learned Counsel for the respondent urged that a revision petition would not lie to this Court since the "authority" which heard the appeal, viz., the Small Causes Court, is not a "Court" subordinate to this Court when deciding appeals against orders of the House Rent Controller.   

A Court can certainly be an "authority" though every "authority" need not be a Court. It is commonly stated that the High Court is the highest authority in the Province in Judicial matters. There is no inherent absurdity or incorrectness about this expression.  There was the other  contention that both the Courts erred in ordering eviction, since the premises were used by the petitioner for non-residential purposes, and were required by the respondent for residential purposes, and that the lower appellate Court erred in not referring to the affidavit filed by the former owner's husband stating that the premises were taken by the petitioner on rent only for non-residential purposes, and for making appalams and not for residential purposes at all.

The Court did not agree to this.  The observations in the order of the trial Court already quoted, show that it was not the petitioner's case that he had taken the premises for non-residential purposes. The petitioner himself had only contended that he was using a portion of the premises for making appalams and not the entire premises. He had admitted that he and the members of his family were living in that house and sleeping even in the rooms where the appalams were made when they were not actually being made.  The Court opined  that the premises were only taken and used for "residential purposes" though a portion of the premises was undoubtedly used for making appalams when people were not sleeping there, and were used for sleeping purposes when appalams were not made.  

The court concluded that the primary purpose for which the building is let our or used should be the determining factor. A lawyer may use a room of his house for giving legal advice to his clients; an astrologer may use a room of his house for giving predictions; a barber may use a room of his house for shaving his clients; but such use of a room will never make a house itself one used for "non-residential purposes." In this case, the difficulty has become greater because the rooms used for the making appalams were also used for sleeping by the members of the family all of whom were not proved to be engaged in the appalam industry. So, the analogy of a doctor and nurses sleeping in a clinic, cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, will not apply.   

All the contentions of the petitioner  failed. Court directed that the  petitioner must vacate the premises within a month of the order, which  time is given as a special act of grace with the consent of the respondent.  

Whether the judgement interested you or not ! ~ Delhi pappads at exhibitions are exciting and tempting.  Here are some pictures, showing the frying and the skill of the worker in taking out without spilling the hot oil on persons around !!  

With regards – S. Sampathkumar
12.2.2023