T.K. Lakshmanan v. Koyyodan Madhavi and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN** THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 **CRP.No. 2091 of 2001** **----------------------** _( AA.556/1997 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR S.M. P.608/1985 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, KANNUR)_ ## REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- T.K. LAKSHMANAN, THERADETHU HOUSE, KUNNARU AMSOM, PALAKKODE DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN ADV. SRI.A.K. ALEX ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOYYODAN MADHAVI, W/O. NARAYANAN, KAKKAMPARA, ETTIKULAM P.O. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAMANTALI DEVASWOM. 3. P.P. CHIRUTHAI, PADINJARE PURAYIL, KAKKAMPARAM, RAMANTHALI. BY ADV. SRI.S.V. BALAKRISHNA IYER ADV. SRI.K. JAYAKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008, ALONG WITH C.R.P NO. 2098 OF 2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: **C.R.P.NO. 2091 OF 2001** **ORDER ON C.M.P.NO. 4504 OF 2001 IN C.R.P.NO. 2091 OF 2001** DISMISSED 14.02.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. **K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. Nos. 2091 AND 2098 OF 2001 ................................................................................... Dated this the 14[th] February, 2008** ## **O R D E R** These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of S.M.P. Nos. 608 of 1985 and 607 of 1985 respectively on the file of the Deputy Collector (Land Tribunal), Kannur. S.M.P.No. 607 of 1985 was initiated showing Koyyodan Koran as the cultivating tenant. In S.M.P. No.608 of 1985, Koyyodan Madhavi is the cultivating tenant. The Land Tribunal, as per the common order dated 20.01.1996 allowed the claim made by the cultivating tenants and held that they are cultivating tenants in respect of respective petition schedule properties. The Land Tribunal held that the cultivating tenants are entitled to purchase 'jenmam' right in respect of the property, the jenmi being Sree Ramanthali Devaswom. Before the Land Tribunal, the first respondent was the Executive Officer of the Devaswom. One Chiruthai got herself impleaded as additional respondent and she is described in the order as C-party. The revision petitioner Lakshmanan got himself impleaded as additional respondent and he is described in the order as D-Party. The revision petitioner contended that he is in possession of an extent of 10 cents of land in Survey No. 29/2 and therefore that much extent of land should not be assigned in favour of the cultivating tenants. The Land Tribunal rejected this contention. 2. Challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Lakshmanan, D-party in the proceedings (revision petitioner) filed A.A.Nos. 555 and 556 of 1997 against S.M.P.Nos. 607 and 608 of 1985. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal. **2** ## **C.R.P. Nos. 2091 AND 2098 OF 2001** 3. The case of A-party (cultivating tenants) before the Land Tribunal was that they are in possession of the properties claimed by them. It was contended by them that one M.T.Ambu and his wife Karinchi took the property on lease as per Ext.A1 Marupatt of the year 1956. On the death of Karinchi, her rights devolved on her husband Ambu and children Kunhathi, Kunhiraman and Chiruthai. They assigned their rights to Koyyodan Kannan as per Ext. A2 of the year 1963. Kannan assigned his fractional interests in the property to Govindan as per Ext.A3. Govindan assigned his rights to his sisters Janaki and Madhavi as per Ext.A4 in the year 1967. The properties were partitioned as per Ext.A5 partition deed and various items were set apart to Kannan, Janaki and Madhavi. The cultivating tenants in S.M.P.No. 607 of 1985 got rights from Janaki while the cultivating tenant in S.M.P. No. 608 of 1985 is Madhavi referred to above. 4. The contention of the revision petitioner is that an extent of 10 cents of land was entrusted to him by the Devaswom orally and that he had constructed a bunk shop in that land. The entrustment was in the year 1984. Evidently there cannot be any lease after 01.04.1964 in view of the bar contained in Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The revision petitioner cannot claim any tenancy right as per the entrustment in the year 1984. The contention of the revision petitioner is that he continued his possession in respect of 10 cents of land and that much extent of land was not included in the title deeds under which the cultivating tenants in the S.M. proceedings claimed title. It was pointed out that Sy.No.29/2 is not included in any of the earlier documents under which the cultivating tenants traced their title, but that survey number is included for the first time in Ext.A5 partition deed. It was also pointed out that the extent also differs from the extent shown in the Marupatt. The cultivating **3** ## **C.R.P. Nos. 2091 AND 2098 OF 2001** tenants, on the other hand, pointed out that the boundaries shown in the documents are relevant and not the exact extent or the survey number. The Authorised Officer in his report identified the property and stated that there are well defined boundary walls on all sides of the property. The property claimed by the cultivating tenants is bounded by these boundary walls and the entire extent claimed by them is included therein. The Land Tribunal, relying on the principles laid down in _**Nani Amma Gouri Amma vs. Narayani Amma Savithri Amma**_ [ **1957 K.L.T. 458 ]** that in case of discrepancies between boundaries, survey number and extent, the boundaries will prevail and held that the claim made by the cultivating tenants is liable to be accepted. 5. It was contended by the revision petitioner that O.S.No. 274 of 1985 was filed by Koran (the cultivating tenant in S.M.P. No. 607 of 1985) against the revision petitioner and another for permanent prohibitory injunction and that suit was dismissed as per Ext.D10 judgment. Though Koran filed A.S.No. 9 of 1990, the same was dismissed by Ext.D13 judgment. It is submitted that Ext. D13 judgment was confirmed in S.A.No. 140 of 1995 by the High Court. The revision petitioner contends that the claim for possession made by Koran, one of the cultivating tenants was not accepted by the civil court and therefore he cannot put forward the very same contention before the Land Tribunal and get a purchase certificate in respect of the property involved in the aforesaid civil suit. O.S.No. 274 of 1985 was a simple suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The question of title was not relevant in such a suit. On the other hand, in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal for purchase of right, title and interest of the landlord and intermediaries, the question of tenancy right is the material question to be considered. Tenancy right confers title. In other words, the question of title is the relevant factor to be considered by the Land Tribunal. The decision of the civil court **4** ## **C.R.P. Nos. 2091 AND 2098 OF 2001** in a suit for injunction is not conclusive in so far as the proceedings before the Land Tribunal are concerned. On the other hand, if, in a suit on title, the question of tenancy arises for consideration, the civil court shall stay the proceedings and refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal under section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The scheme of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is such that the Land Tribunal is the authority to decide the question of tenancy. Even if the said question arises in a civil suit, the civil court shall stay its hands and refer the matter to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the revision petitioner that because the civil court in an injunction suit did not accept the contention of one of the cultivating tenants regarding possession, he is precluded from putting forward the claim of tenancy before the Land Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the cultivating tenants pointed out that the Devaswom had filed O.S.No. 70 of 1989 against Kannan, Koran and Madhavi (Koran and Madhavi being the cultivating tenants before the Land Tribunal) for recovery of possession. In that case, the question of tenancy was referred to the Land Tribunal . The Land Tribunal numbered the proceedings as R.C. 4 of 1990 and as per order dated 26.12.1994, the Land Tribunal held that the claim of tenancy made by the defendants is established. On the basis of the findings of the Land Tribunal, which, the civil court was bound to accept, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 25.07.1995. 7. The contention of the revision petitioner that the particular survey number is not included in the title deeds under which the cultivating tenants claimed title, would have been relevant if the revision petitioner could establish that he is having tenancy right over the disputed lands. But the only contention raised by him is that by an oral **5** ## **C.R.P. Nos. 2091 AND 2098 OF 2001** entrustment in the year 1984 made by the Devaswom, he came into possession of the property. Such an entrustment does not confer any right on the revision petitioner as per the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The revision petitioner, being a person who cannot put forward that he is a cultivating tenant or that he is a person having any sort of right recognised by the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I do not think that the authorities below committed any error in rejecting the contention put forward by the revision petitioner. The Civil Revision Petitions lack merit and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. **K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.** **lk** ## **C.R.P. Nos. 2091 AND 2098 OF 2001** **6** **K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................ C.R.P. Nos. 2091 and 2098 of 2001 ......................................................... Dated this the 14[th] February, 2008** **O R D E R**