Nerumkarthakkott Devaswom Ooralam Rajamanya Rajasree Kozhikott Padinhare Kovilakath Sri Manavedan alias Kunhanujan Raja v Balakrishnan and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. Bhavadasan
- Judgment Date
- 2011-02-08
- Court Decision / Holding
- That the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal dismissed; no costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. ATHRAPULIKKAL MAMUKKATTY, RESIDENT OF EDAPPAKKUZHI SMASANA COMMITTEE, VALLIKKUNNU NORTH
- KESAVAN, S/O. KARIPPRA SANKARAN, SECRETARY, EDAPPAKKUZHI SMASANA COMMITTEE
- CHANDRAN, S/O.OORUTHODI AYYAPPAN, JOINT SECRETARY, EDAPPAKUZHI SMASANA COMMITTEE
- DEVADASAN, S/O. AMBALATHINGAL DAMODARAN, JOINT SECRETARY, EDAPPAKUZHI SMASANA COMMITTEE
- BALAN, S/O. ARAKKAL PARANGODAN, TREASURER, EDAPPAKUZHI SMASANA COMMITTEE
Respondents
- NERUMKARITHAKKOT DEVASWOM OORALAM RAJAMANYA RAJASREE KOZHIKKOTT PADINHARE KOVILAKATH SRI.MANAVEDAN ALIAS, KUNHANUJAN RAJA, BY NAME KOZHIKKOTT MANAVIKRAMA SAMOODIRI RAJA
- P.K.SREE MANAVEDAN RAJA ZAMORIN
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
- • SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN
Case Synopsis & Summary
The plaintiff Devaswom filed suit for possession of the suit property on the strength of title to about 3 acres 19 cents of land in RS No. 32/1, Tirur Taluk. A portion was acquired for a road, leaving the balance as the suit property. The defendants alleged long-standing use of the land as a burial ground by the Hindu low-caste community and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of proven title. On AS No.104/89 before the Sub Court, Tirur, the lower appellate court opined that the plaintiff had title to the property but recognized a customary right of burial in the property in favor of the defendants, effectively allowing burial of the dead by the lower caste in the suit property. The order decreed recovery of possession subject to the defendants’ right to bury. Aggrieved, the defendants challenged in a second appeal advancing two questions: whether title can be proved solely by patta/adangal; and whether the customary burial right acts as a local law destroying title. The learned counsel for appellants relied on Lakshmidhar Misra to argue loss of title by long use as burial ground. The respondent contended that the defendants’ burial right reflects an admission of plaintiff’s title. The High Court affirms the lower appellate court’s conclusions, holding that the plaintiff’s title is established and that a customary burial right exists. The appeal is dismissed with no costs, and the burials may continue subject to the court’s guidance.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contended that title to the suit property cannot be made to vest merely on production of patta and adangal; they challenged the lower appellate court’s finding that the plaintiff had title and instead asserted that long use of the land as a burial ground by the defendants created a customary right amounting to a local law, which would prevail over the plaintiff’s title. They relied on Lakshmidhar Misra and others v. Rangalal and others ( AIR 1950 PC 56 ) to argue that such use extinguished the plaintiff’s title. They urged that the right to bury under a customary practice defeats the title and warrants dismissal of the suit.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the defendants’ plea of customary burial right demonstrates that the plaintiff’s title is admitted. They asserted that the evidence, including the commissioner’s report and historical usage since 1942, established both title in the plaintiff and the existence of a burial right for the lower-class Hindu community. They maintained that the trial court’s finding on title was rightly upheld by the lower appellate court and that there is no valid ground to reverse that finding. They asked that the decree recognizing burial rights (subject to possession) be sustained and that the appeal be dismissed.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lakshmidhar Misra and others v. Rangalal and others | AIR 1950 PC 56 | Mentioned Only | Cited by appellants to argue loss of title by long use as burial ground; the judgment does not adopt this proposition and relies on its own factual findings of title and burial rights. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Nerumkarthakkott Devaswom Ooralam Rajamanya Rajasree Kozhikott Padinhare Kovilakath Sri Manavedan alias Kunhanujan Raja v Balakrishnan and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.