High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-07-25Writ petitions disposed of; no costs

Chappayil Karappan v. Saseedharan Unni and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 35931/2004

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. KuriaKose
Judgment Date: 2007-07-25
Court Decision / Holding: The court disposed of both writ petitions: it directed the Land Reforms Appellate Authority to decide the I.A. (Exts. A1–A14) within two months and to incorporate those documents into SM 186/87; it directed the Munsiff to defer trial and to proceed with trial only during or after December 2007 and by the second week of January 2008, contingent on the appellate decision; it noted that if the appellate authority decides in the petitioner's favor, he may produce a copy of that judgment; if the appeal is not disposed of, he should obtain certified copies of Exts A1–A14 and present them to the Munsiff. No costs were awarded.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of; no costs

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chappayil Karappan
Achuthan s/o Karappan
Karthiyayani d/o Karappan
Bhaskaran s/o Karappan

Respondents

Saseedharan Unni
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Ramachandran
• P. Ramachandran
• R. Meera
• Adv. Smt.

Counsels for Respondents

• T. Krishnan Unni

Case Synopsis & Summary

The judgement concerns two writ petitions challenging a stay of a civil suit and the production of vital documents before the Land Tribunal/Appellate Authority. The petitioner, Chappayil Karappan, a lessee of part of the suit prop erty, had obtained certificates of purchase in Land Tribunal proceedings, but these were set aside on remand. He appeals to the High Court seeking mandamus to trace or certify copies of Exts. A1–A14, documents alleged to be missing from the Land Tribunal record and essential to his case before the appellate authority. The court considers WP(C) No.35931/2004 and WP(C) No.2441/2005 together and, after hearing, holds that the absence of the documents in the case bundle cannot impede the appellate process and that the Land Reforms Appellate Authority should be directed to decide the related I.A. within two months and to incorporate the Exts into the appellate records. While noting the pendency of parallel proceedings before the Land Tribunal, it directs the Munsiff to defer the trial and to commence only in December 2007 or by the 2nd week of January 2008, contingent on the appellate outcome. The petitions are disposed of with no cost. The court relies on Krishnamma v. Nageswari Amma and Govindankutty Mannadiar v. Lakshmikutty Amma to support its approach to stay and reference.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 10 CPCSection 125(3) KLR ActSection 151 CPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC
Pendency of parallel proceedings will not justify a reference under Section 125(3) KLR Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners filed W.P.No.2441/2005 alleging that vital Exts.A1–A14, produced before the Land Tribunal in OA/AA proceedings, are missing from the case bundle and must be traced or certified copies issued. They contend these documents are essential for prosecuting the appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority (A.A. 205/2000) and for a fair adjudication of their claim. They seek mandamus to trace the documents or direct certified copies, arguing that the records should be complete for correct resolution by the appellate authority. They rely on the possibility of completing the appellate process quickly and observing due process, while acknowledging the concurrent Land Tribunal proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader submits that Exts.A1–A14 are safely kept in file SM 602/79 of the defunct Land Tribunal and should be incorporated into the records of SM No.186/87 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. He argues that the appellate authority should decide the A.A. 2000/2000 promptly, and the court should apply the provisions of Section 10 CPC, 125(3) KLR Act, and Section 151 CPC as appropriate, while recognizing the court’s inherent powers to ensure fair procedure.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Krishnamma v. Nageswari Amma	1984 KLT 810	Positive	Cited as supportive authority for the proposition that pendency before the Land Tribunal is not a justification for invoking a reference under Section 125(3) of the KLR Act.
Govindankutty Mannadiar v. Lakshmikutty Amma	1983 KLT 557	Positive	Cited in support of the proposition that Section 10 CPC cannot be applied to stay based on pendency of prior proceedings; aligns with the court’s approach.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Chappayil Karappan v. Saseedharan Unni and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2007 / 3RD SRAVANA 1929** **WP(C).No. 35931 of 2004(C)** ## **--------------------------** **OS.303/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR** **....................** ## **PETITIONER:** **---------------CHAPPAYIL KARAPPAN, AGED 75, S/O.THEYYAN, PILATHARA, P.O.KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **ADDL. P2 TO P4 ARE IMPLEADED** **2. ACHUTHAN S/O. KARAPPAN, AGED 48, PILATHARA, POST KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. KARTHIYAYANI, D/O. DO. AGED 44, DO. DO.** **4. BHASKARAN, S/O. DO. DO.** **ADDL. P2 TO P4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 25.07.2007 IN IA. 5056/2007.** - **BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.R.MEERA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **-------------------** **1. SASEEDHARAN UNNI, S/O.KAMALAKSHIKUTTY NE THAYARAMMA, THEKKANCHERY HOUSE, P.O., KANIYAMPRAM(OTAPPALAM), PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. STATE OF KERAL, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2007, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2441 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C) NO.35931/2004** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TIRUR IN IA. 1935/04 IN OS. 303/02 DT. 26.11.04.** **EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TIRUR IN IA. NO.1828/04 IN OS. NO.303/02 DT. 16.10.04.** **EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 8.12.99 FROM THE SECRETARY, LAND BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF IA 1934/04 IN OS. 303/02 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TIRUR DT. 19.8.04.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.** **---------------------------------W.P.(C) NO. 35931/2004 & 2441/2005 ---------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of July , 2007** ## **JUDGMENT** The defendant in a suit filed by the first respondent for a declaration of his title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property having an extent of 40 cents in R.S. No.176/2 of Melmuri Amsom Desom, in Malappuram District challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Munsiff on an application for stay filed under Section 10 of the CPC. The petitioner is a lessee of one acre of property from the Tharavadu of the 1[st] respondent long ago. Several years after that the first respondent or his branch gets jenm right to the suit property which is only a portion of the property already leased out to the petitioner. The petitioner had been granted certificate of purchase twice by the competent Land Tribunal as per suo moto proceedings. But later on the third occasion, the very same Land Tribunal set aside that certificate of purchase, due to a remand order by the Appellate Authority mainly on the reason that the relevant documents produced by the petitioner and marked in the Land Tribunal were missing at that subsequent stage. Now those records have been traced out and forwarded to the appellate authority before 2 WPC No.35931/2007 & another whom the petitioner has filed an appeal from the last order of the land Tribunal and the same is pending before that authority. In the meanwhile, since the learned Munsiff was going ahead with the trial of the suit, two applications were filed by the petitioner. One was for referring the plea of tenancy raised by him to the competent Tribunal, the other one was for stay of the suit till the appellate authority disposed of the appeal. Under the order impugned in WP.(C) No.35931/2004, the application for stay filed under Section 10 was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. 2. The petitioner's case in WPC No.2441/2005 is that the documents Exts.A1 to A14 produced by him before the Land Tribunal in the O.A which is subject matter of A.A. No. 205/2000 now pending before the appellate Authority are not available in the case bundle. These documents are vital and necessary for the petitioner to prosecute his case before the Appellate Authority. He, therefore, submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue. He has been informed by Ext.P1 communication that the documents have been traced out and that the same have been forwarded to the Appellate Authority. But it is understood that the documents are not available in the Appellate Authority,Thrissur. The petitioner, therefore submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 4[th] respondent District WPC No.35931/2007 & another 3 Colletor, Malappuram. There is no response. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the 3[rd] respondent for getting certified copies of Exts.A1 to A14. By Ext.P3 communication, the 3[rd] respondent informed the petitioner that Exts.A1 to A14 are not seen in the case record and therefore, the request may not granted. The petitioner suspect that the present state of affairs should be due to the tactics of the landlord/6[th] respondent. The prayers in the writ petition is for issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 2 to 5 to trace out the documents or to direct the 3[rd] respondent to issue certified copies of the documents. 3. I have heard the submissions of Sri. K.Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned counsel for the party respondent and those of the learned Government Pleader. 4. As for W.P.(C) No.2441/2005, the Government Pleader submitted on the basis of a letter dated 1.7.2005 received from the Land Tribunal to the Advocate General that the documents Exts.A1 to A14 in S.M.No.186/87 are safely kept in file No. SM 602/79 of the Defunct Land Tribunal, Kuttippuram. It is also stated in the letter that the details of these exhibits have been stated in the order of the Land Tribunal, Tirur in S.M. No.186/87 dated 13.4.1993 which is the order WPC No.35931/2007 & another 4 impugned in A.A.No.205/2000 on the files of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. In view of the facts disclosed by the letter of the Land Tribunal, there will be a direction to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority to incorporate the documents Exts.A1 to A14 presently available in SM.No.602/79 of the defunct Land Tribunal, Kuttippuram as part of the records in SM No.186/87 and to take a decision in the A.A. at the earliest and at any rate within tow months of receiving a copy of this judgment. 6. As for the orders which are impugned in W.P.(C) No. 35931/2004, Mr.T.Krishnanunni's argument is that the pendency of a parallel proceeding before the Land Tribunal will not be justification for making a reference under Section 125(3) of the KLR Act. The above argument which has the support of the judgment of this court in **Krishnamma v. Nageswari Amma (1984 KLT 810)** is acceptable. The counsel further argued against Ext.P2 that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply when stay is sought for on the basis of pendency of the previous proceedings before the Land Tribunal and it should be noticed that this arguments also has the support of the judgment of this court in **Govindankutty Mannadiar** **v. Lakshmikutty Amma ( 1983 KLT 557)** At the same time, it is to be noticed that the petitioner invoked inherent powers of the court WPC No.35931/2007 & another 5 saved under Section 151 of the CPC. A.A. No.205/2000 is pending now before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. I have already directed the Land Reforms Appellate Authority to take a decision in the I.A within a short time frame. The petitioner is likely to have pragmatic difficulties in pursuing the trial unless he is able to produce atleast certified copies of the documents Exts.P1 to A14, which according to me, are crucial for correctly resolving the issues in the suit. Therefore, I direct the learned Munsiff to specialist the suit for trial only during or after December 2007. In the meanwhile, if the appellate authority decides the appeal in favour of the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment of the appellate authority. If for some reason the appeal is not disposed of by the appellate authority, till then, it is for the petitioner to obtain certified copies of Exts.A1 to A14 from the Appellate Authority and produce them before the Learned Munsiff and get ready for trial, which will be commenced by the learned Munsiff at any rate during the 2[nd] week of January 2008. Both the writ petitions are disposed of as above. No cost. ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.** dpk WPC No.35931/2007 & another 6