Raman Nair v. Janaky Amma and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935** **RSA.No. 567 of 2009 ( )** **------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS.193/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR DATED 16-02-2009** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS.79/1988 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR DATED 02-07-2003** ## **APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT (APPELLANT-IST DEFENDANT):** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **RAMAN NAIR, SON OF NARAYANAN NAIR, VATTAKKATTU VEEDU, RAYAMANGALAM KARA RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT, VIJAYA VILASATH PADIVATTOM KARA, EDAPPALLY THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.NAIJU MATHEW SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS-PLAINTIFFS & 2ND DEFENDANT:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. JANAKY AMMA,DAUGHTER OF KARTHIAYANI AMMA KUTIYIL VEETTIL, RAYAMANGALAM KARA RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MATAMPILLY VEETTIL, KOOVAPPADY KARA CHERANELLUR VILLAGE.** **2. RAVEENDRAN NAIR,SON OF NARAYANAN NAIR, VADAKKATTU VEETTIL, RAYAMANGALAM KARA RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.** **3. LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,DAUGHTER OF KARTHIYANI** - **AMMA, KUTIYIL VEEDU, RAYAMANGALAM KARA RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT KOORALIL VEETTIL, KEEZHILLAM KARA PERUMBAVOOR PAKUTHY. (REMOVED)** **...2** ## **RSA.No. 567 of 2009 ( )** **-2-** **THE THIRD RESPONDENT IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 05.7.2011 IN I.A. NO.1533/2011** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE SRI.K.K.VIVEKANANDAN** **THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **JJJ** ## **N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------ R.S.A. No. 567 of 2009 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013 ## **J U D G M E N T** The 1[st] defendant in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession is the appellant. The extent of the property shown in the suit is 2 acres 10 cents. It is comprised in survey nos.47/6, 47/9B and 47/9C of Rayamangalam Village, Kunnathunad. The trial court decreed the suit allowing recovery of possession in respect of 91 cents of land in survey no.47/6, 10 cents in survey no.47/9B and 3 cents in survey no.47/9C shaded in brown, yellow and green colour respectively, in Ext.C1(a) plan. There is also a decree for mesne profits. The appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed by the lower appellate court. ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-2-** 2. After hearing both parties, the following substantial questions of law have been re-framed by me: - (i) Whether the courts below were justified in over looking Exts.B2 to B4 - the purchase certificates issued by the Land Tribunal; are those certificates conclusive and binding on the respondents? - (ii) Whether there are admissions made by the plaintiffs in Ext.B1 plaint which would disentitle the plaintiffs/respondents from getting a decree as prayed for? - (iii) Are the courts below right in rejecting the plea of adverse possession and limitation? 3. Ext.A1 is the settlement deed dated 26-08-1955. Narayanan Nair, Krishnan Nair, Raman Nair, Parukutty and minors Lakshmikutty and Janaki were parties to Ext. A1. ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-3-** The first plaintiff Janaki Amma and the 2nd defendant Lakshmikutty Amma are the daughters of Narayanan Nair. The 2nd plaintiff (Ravindran Nair) and first defendant (Raman Nair) were the sons of Narayanan Nair. The properties mentioned in Ext.A1 were settled in favour of the respective allottees. But the right to take income from the said property was reserved in favour of Narayanan Nair the executant and his wife Kathiyani Amma. The first defendant Raman Nair is the brother of the plaintiff. 4. Ext.A2 is the sale deed dated 14-09-1957 executed by Krishnan Nair and his father Narayanan Nair in favour of the first plaintiff and second defendant jointly. Since that document was executed more than 30 years back, the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is available with regard to the execution of that document. Ext.A4 is the certified copy of the written statement filed by the first defendant in O.S. 62/1981 on the file of the ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-4-** Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. The factum of execution of Ext.A2 was admitted by the first defendant in Ext.A4 suit. Though in Ext.A2 sale deed the first plaintiff, Janaki and the second defendant, Lakshmi Kutty Amma were shown as the daughters of Parukutty Amma, evidently it was a mistake. It is not disputed that it was actually a mistake since first plaintiff and second defendant are daughters of Karthiyani Amma. Parukutty Amma is the sister of Janaki Amma mentioned above. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.A2 on the ground that Janaki Amma and Lakshmikutty Amma were shown as daughters of Parukutty Amma and so the first plaintiff and the second defendant cannot claim right under Ext.A2, cannot be countenanced for a moment. In fact, the first defendant did not dispute the execution of Ext.A2 sale deed since that fact was admitted in A4 written statement filed by the first defendant in the previous suit O.S. 62 of 1981 of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-5-** 5. The plaint schedule property in O.S. 62/1981 is shown as the property in Sy. No. 47/10 A . The extent mentioned therein is one acre. Ext.B1 is the copy of the plaint in that suit. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants herein that in Ext.B1 plaint it was admitted by the second plaintiff that the property lying to the west and north of plaint schedule property shown therein belonged to the defendant therein who is the first defendant in this case and so plaintiffs cannot dispute the 1[st] defendant's right. That has been projected by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of the contention that it was not only possession that was admitted but actually the ownership also. The averment in Ext.B1 plaint cannot be understood in that sense. What was stated is only pertaining to possession of the property lying to the west and north of the plaint schedule properties shown therein, the respondents contend. **-6-** ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** 6. The learned counsel for the appellants would also contend that the finding in O.S. 62/1981 and in the judgment of the appellate Court (Ext.A5) are not binding on the first defendant since if at all that is only an adverse finding against the first defendant in a case which was decided in favour of the first defendant, for it is trite law that adverse finding against a successful party cannot operate as _res judicata,_ since the successful party cannot file an appeal challenging the finding alone. But the contention that there is a clear and categoric admission in Ext. B1 suit that the first defendant was the owner in possession of the property lying to the west and north of the plaint schedule property cannot be accepted since going by the plan those properties are not lying immediate to the west of the plaint schedule property mentioned herein. ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-7-** 7. The specific averment in paragraph 4 of the written statement filed in O.S. 62/1981 which has been extracted by the lower appellate Court in paragraph 13 of the judgment would make it indubitably clear that the appellants herein had admitted the execution of Ext.A1 the settlement deed and Ext.A2 sale deed executed in favour of the first plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. Even otherwise, execution of Ext.A2 sale deed dated 14-09-1957, having been executed by the parties having title to the property cannot be now questioned by the appellant. 8. The main thrust of the contention raised by the appellants is based on Exts. B2 to B4 the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the purchase certificates were issued in favour of the appellant and since those purchase certificates were not set ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-8-** aside by filing the appeal, by virtue of Sec. 72 (k) of the Land Reforms Act, those purchase certificates have become final and the conclusiveness of those purchase certificates cannot be challenged by the respondents herein. This argument has been taken strong exception to by the learned counsel for the respondents pointing out that those purchase certificates are vitiated by fraud and collusion and no individual notices were served on the respondents herein and as such those purchase certificates are not valid and binding as against the respondents herein. An attempt was made by the defendants to misguide the Court contending that notices were actually issued to the first plaintiff and the second defendant. There is absolutely no merit in that contention. Ext. B5 is the notice issued under Sec. 72 f (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the notices were issued to Narayanan Nair, Janaki Amma and Sivaraman Nair. It is ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-9-** actually an incorrect submission. The names of Narayanan Nair, Janaki Amma and Sivaraman Nair are shown as against Column No. 6 which relates to the name and address of the tenants and not that of the jenmi (landlord). The landlords shown therein is Kidangoor Devaswom. In the top portion the addressee to whom the notice was directed to be issued is seen written in separate ink. There the person to whom the notice was sent is shown as Narayanan Nair, Edakkattu Veedu, Rayamangalam. Narayanan Nair is the father of Raman Nair. Since the properties were assigned in favour of Janaki Amma (first plaintiff ) and Lekshmikutty Amma. Narayanan Nair had right over that property. Since there is no evidence to show that notices were issued to Janaki Amma and Lekshmikutty Amma and that those notices were actually served on Janaki Amma and Lekshmikutty Amma, it cannot be accepted that individual notices as ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-10-** required under Sec. 72 (f)(2) was complied with. That apart, when Ext. B5 itself shows that Janaki Amma, Sivaraman Nair and Narayanan Nair are the cultivating tenants in respect of the said property it eludes comprehension, how the appellants can successfully contend that Janaki Amma and Lekshmi Kutty Amma were served with notice, as landlords/jenmis or at least as intermediaries. The further fact that the landlord/jenmi is shown as Kidangoor Devaswom would scuttle the plea raised by the appellants. Kidangoor Devaswom alone has been shown as the jenmi/landlord. No intermediary is shown in the relevant column in Ext. B5. Ext. B5 was issued in SMP 320/1976. That was in respect of 47 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.47/9B. Ext. B6 is the similar notice issued in SMP 320/1976. There also the names of the tenants are shown as Narayanan Nair, Janaki Amma and Sivaraman Nair. There is nothing in Ext. B5 and B6 to ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-11-** show that the appellant herein was the tenant. When Narayanan Nair, Janaki Amma and Sivaraman Nair were described as cultivating tenants and when Ext. B6 notice was addressed to Narayanan Nair it is incomprehensible how Ext. B6 could come to the hands of the appellant and how he can contend that the service of individual notice as required under Sec. 72 (f)(2) was complied with. In Ext. B7 also Narayana Nair, Janaki amma and Sivaraman Nair are shown as cultivating tenants and Kidangoor Devaswom is shown as the respondent/jenmi. That S.M.P.was in respect of 27 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 47/9C. There also the notice was directed to be sent to Narayanan Nair, Vadakkattu Veedu, Rayamangalam. That was in respect of SMP 319/1976. Nowhere it was mentioned that the cultivating tenant mentioned therein is the appellant herein nor is there anything to show that Janaki Amma and Lekshmikutty Amma were shown as the respondents/jenmi ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-12-** or as intermediaries. There is also nothing on record to show that any such notice was sent to Janaki Amma and Lekshmikutty Amma earlier. Therefore, it is only a futile exercise on the part of the appellant to contend that individual notices were sent to and were received by Janaki Amma and Lekshmikutty Amma. In view of what is stated above, the plea based on Sec. 72 (k) of the KLR Act, that conclusiveness is attached to those purchase certificates and that those certificates are unassailable and are binding on the respondents cannot be sustained at all. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is still mysterious as to how the appellants could get the notices addressed to Narayanan Nair of Kottakkad, Rayamangalam and produce those notices in Court if the notice had been sent to Narayanan Nair. That would buttress the plea of fraud and collusion raised by the defendants, that the notices sent from the Land Tribunal were received by the ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-13-** appellant himself and manipulated and maneuvered by him. The appellant should have caused production of the three Land Tribunal records in SMP 319, 320 and 321/1976 and the court should have been convinced of the fact as to who all were shown as the cultivating tenants and who all are the respondents (landlord/intermediary) and whether individual notices required under Sec. 72(f)(2) were actually served on Janaki Amma or Lekshmikutty Amma. Instead, a clever ploy was attempted to be played by the appellant to beguile the Court pointing out that there are three names shown in the notices (Narayanan Nair, Janaki Amma and Sivaraman Nair) and so procedure was duly complied with, obviously oblivious of the fact that their names are shown only as cultivating tenants. It seems, the appellant wanted to steel a march on the Court by adopting such dexterous devices. ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-14-** 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in **Ahammed Kuttyv Mariyakutty - 2000 (1) KLT 829; Ramakke v. Gopi - 2011 (4) KLT SN. 76 (Case No. 80); Sankaranarayan Potti v. K.Sreedevi and Others - (1998) 3 SCC 751** in support of his submission that the purchase certificate issued under Sec. 72 K (2) of the K.L.R. Act is conclusive proof of the assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner and the intermediaries over the holding or portion thereof to which the assignment relates and once such a certificate is issued the person in whose name it is issued is to be considered as the person in possession of the property. But in all these cases it was also held that if the purchase certificate was obtained by fraud and without following the procedure prescribed under the KLR Act and without issuing individual notice to the persons interested in the land, such **-15-** ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** conclusiveness cannot be attached to such certificates. It was stated by P.W.1 that notices were not served to the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant. Exts. B5 to B7 were attempted to be pressed into service to contend that notices were duly sent or served. That argument is found to be unacceptable for the reasons mentioned earlier. Not only that Exts. B5 to B7 were not produced from proper custody. Served notices can only be in the respective files of the Land Tribunal. It is inconceivable, how the appellant could produce such notices in Court. That is one of the main grounds which has been projected by the respondents to contend that the purchase certificates Exts. B2 to B4 are vitiated by fraud and collusion. The very fact that the appellants did not cause production of the three files from the Land Tribunal would persuade the court to believe that the procedures prescribed were not duly complied with. That would go a long way against the 1[st] **-16-** ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** defendant/appellant. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in **Muhammad Haji v. Kunhunni Nair - 1993 (1) KLT 227 (F.B), Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma v. Miniyatan Zacharias and Another - ILR 2008 (2) Kerala 1** in support of his contention that if the Land Tribunal failed to comply with the provisions specified in Rules 9 and 10 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 and Sec. 72 (F), it renders the decision a nullity and in such cases the jurisdiction of the civil Court is excluded. It is further submitted that if a decision of a Court or Tribunal is a nullity or is beset with the jurisdictional infirmity such decision cannot operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings. In the case on hand it is proved to the hilt that individual notices were not served on the second plaintiff and the second defendant. The name of ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-17-** Janaki is shown in the column meant for showing the names of the cultivating tenants. There is no evidence to show that any notice was sent to Janaki. The contention that the purchase certificate should have been got set aside by filing appeal and so long as that is not done, the purchase certificates should be held conclusive cannot be sustained since the illegality in the procedure adopted is so writ large that the allegation of fraud and collusion alleged by the respondent stood well established. 11. It is also pertinent to note that in the written statement filed by the appellants nothing was stated as to the person from whom and when he had obtained oral lease of the property. As per Ext.A1 settlement deed Narayanan Nair had already divested of his right over the property. Though he retained with him the right to take income from the property for the maintenance of himself and his wife, he did not retain the right over the property so ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-18-** as to grant lease as alleged by the appellants. In evidence he says that he had obtained oral lease of the property in 1962. He also says that at that point of time he was aged only 22 years. The very fact that the oral lease is claimed from the father, that too in respect of the property over which his father had absolutely no right, is also a strong circumstance to hold that the story put forward by the appellant is nothing but a brazen lie. 12. On going through the evidence given by DW1 it can be seen that he has no regard for truth. He was changing his answers every now and then to suit his convenience. He even went to the extent of saying that Janakikutty and Lekshmikutty mentioned in Exts. A1 and A2 are entirely different, obviously, taking advantage of the fact that in one document they are referred to as the children of Parukutty. When he was cornered in cross examination and asked as to whether his sister Parukutty ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-19-** had any daughter by name Janaki and Lekshmikutty he with unabashed brazenness feigns ignorance. His somersaulting exercise found throughout the evidence given by him in cross-examination itself would show that the entire statement given by him is nothing but a bundle of falsehood. These aspects were highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents to buttress his submission that the appellant, who is none other than the brother of the first respondent, has chosen to put forward this false claim only to grab at the properties allotted to his brothers and sisters as per Ext.A1 settlement deed. 13. Ext.A2 would show to whom the properties were allotted and assigned. Earlier DW1 wanted to contend that he was totally unaware of all these things but during cross-examination he had to admit everything and he had to even admit the correctness of the averments made by him in Ext.A4, the written statement filed by him in the previous ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-20-** statement, in which the plaintiffs' title to the property was actually admitted by him. Therefore, the contention that, because the purchase certificates were issued in respect of th property, the plaintiffs right over the property was lost was rightly found against by the courts below. 14. What more, the appellant has chosen to put forward a plea of adverse possession and limitation despite the fact that he himself set up a tenancy in respect of the very same property, that too, against his own sisters. Though an attempt was made by the appellants to contend that in the previous proceedings there was an admission with regard to these properties that is found to be not true. Though it was stated that the plaint schedule properties are situated to the north-west of the property possessed by the appellant it is seen that these properties were not actually abutting the defendant's property. Even if any such mistaken admission was made that will not take away ## **R.S.A. No. 567/2009** **-21-** the title which stood vested in the respondent. Since the appellant contended that he was in possession of the property at tenant under Narayanan Nair, his subsequent plea that he has perfected his title by adverse possession and limitation must fall to the ground. The courts below have analysed the evidence in the correct perspective and found that the contention raised by the appellant is absolutely false. I find no merit in this Second Appeal. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj/ani