Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition dismissed

Unnikrishnan v. Pushpa and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(C).No. 2988 of 2014 (O)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Hariprasad
Judgment Date
2017-06-02
Court Decision / Holding
Original Petition dismissed. The court held there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and followed settled law that rivalry in title can render tenancy disputes part of the title issue; hence no mandatory reference to a Land Tribunal was required. The tenancy issue is deemed resolvable within the partition suit itself.
Final Disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • UNNIKRISHNAN

Respondents

  • PUSHPA
  • PRASAD
  • PRAKASAN
  • CHANDRAN
  • VISWANATHAN
  • DIVAKARAN
  • SOMARAJAN
  • SOBHA
  • NALINI
  • REJI
  • RAJANI
  • KRISHNANKUTTY
  • GOPALAN
  • SWAMINATHAN
  • KESAVAN
  • VASU
  • UNNIKRISHNAN
  • LEELA
  • SANATHA
  • KAMALAM ALIAS NAANI
  • PREMANATAN
  • BALASUBRAMANNIAN
  • KUNHIKANNAN ALIAS R. MANI
  • P. CHANDRAN
  • KAMALAM
  • GOPINATHAN
  • PREMA
  • SANDHYA
  • RENJITH (MINOR)
  • SUNITHA
  • B. NIKHIL (MINOR)
  • NITHIN (MINOR)
  • BHANUMATHI
  • ARUN
  • ROOPA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SRI NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
  • • SRI SAIJO HASSAN
  • • SRI PRATHAP PILLAI
  • • SRI BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
  • • SRI SEBIN THOMAS
  • • SRI VIVEK V. KANNANKERI
  • • SRI VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an original petition under OP(C).No. 2988 of 2014 (O) before the Kerala High Court, challenging an order in I.A.3120/2014 in O.S.54/2009 before the Additional Munsiff, Palakkad. The suit is for partition and the parties claim tenancy rights in a certain property derived from Chathu. The petitioners, led by Unnikrishnan (the 8th plaintiff), contend that tenancy rights are to be determined under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and that the question of tenancy can and should be referred to the Land Tribunal for resolution. They assert that the property belongs to Chathu and that the plaintiffs are his descendants who derive rights by succession; hence, tenancy rights are intertwined with title. The respondents contend that Chathu was not the tenant; his grandson Kannappan was the tenant, making the tenancy issue a matter of title rather than a separate tenancy determination to be referred. The court cites established authorities, notably Balakrishnan Nair v. Radha Amma (1987) and Sivakami v. Kumaraswamy (1998), to emphasize that in rival title claims the tenancy question effectively becomes a title dispute and need not be referred in all circumstances. Having considered the well-settled law and the impugned order, the court finds no illegality and dismisses the Original Petition. This results in the tenancy issue being resolved within the partition suit itself, rather than through a Land Tribunal reference.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Tenancy rights under rival claims to title are, in effect, a question of title.
  • Where ownership rights are not in dispute, the question of tenancy rights can be decided in the suit itself and need not refer to the Land Tribunal.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition contends that the tenancy rights in the partition suit under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act should be referred to the Land Tribunal for determination. The plaintiffs claim tenancy by succession from Chathu and argue the title dispute requires resolution of tenancy rights before partition can be effected. They rely on settled authorities that where rival ownership disputes arise, tenancy rights are inextricably tied to title and must be decided in the suit unless appropriate justification exists for a reference. They seek a remedy that preserves their claim as descendants and appellants in the partition proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Chathu was not the tenant; Kannappan, the grandson, was the tenant. Therefore, the tenancy right in question is intrinsically a matter of title between competing claimants. They oppose referring the tenancy question to a Land Tribunal, arguing that the suit itself should determine who holds tenancy rights, and the court should not compel a separate reference. They rely on prior decisions holding that tenancy disputes among title claimants can be resolved within the partition suit when necessary.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Balakrishnan Nair v. Radha Amma1987 (1) KLT 195PositiveCited as a precedent for the proposition that tenancy rights in rival title claims effectively become a title dispute and may be decided in the suit without necessarily reference to the Land Tribunal.
Sivakami v. Kumaraswamy1998 KHC 581PositiveFollowed to restate the view that tenancy rights tied to title disputes should be resolved within the suit, reinforcing the court’s approach to the current petition.

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 Unnikrishnan v. Pushpa and others 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 A.HARIPRASAD** ## **FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939** ## **OP(C).No. 2988 of 2014 (O) ---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.3120/2014 IN OS 54/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 2011.2014** ## **PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF 8:** ## **-----------------------** ## **UNNIKRISHNAN, 45 YEARS S/O LATE MAANI, RESIDING AT NAMBIANTHODI, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN** **SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN** **RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS/ PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------------------** ## **1. PUSHPA, 54 YEARS** - **W/O LATE MANI, RESIDING AT KODUNTHIRAPULLY HOUSE, PANAKKACHIRA, MADUKKA POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** ## **2. PRASAD, 34 YEARS** - **S/O LATE MANI, KODUNTHIRAPULLY HOUSE, PANAKKACHIRA, MADUKKA POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **3. PRAKASAN, 32 YEARS** - **S/O LATE MANI, KODUNTHIRAPULLY HOUSE, PANAKKACHIRA, MADUKKA POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **4. CHANDRAN,64 YEARS** - **S/O LATE KESAVAN, E.D.K. ESTATE, KUPPAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **5. VISWANATHAN,62 YEARS** - **S/O LATE KESAVAN, E.D.K. ESTATE, KUPPAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **6. DIVAKARAN,60 YEARS S/O LATE KESAVAN, E.D.K. ESTATE, KUPPAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **OP(C).No. 2988 of 2014 (O)** **2** **---------------------------** **7. SOMARAJAN,58 YEARS S/O LATE KESAVAN, E.D.K. ESTATE, KUPPAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **8. SOBHA,49 YEARS** - **W/O PAVITHRAN, D/O LATE KESAVAN, E.D.K. ESTATE, KUPPAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **9. NALINI,64 YEARS** - **W/O LATE GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT ODAKADAN ESTATE, KUPPAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **10. REJI,44 YEARS** - **S/O GANGADHARAN, ODAKADAN ESTATE, KUPPAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **11. RAJANI,38 YEARS W/O SASI, D/O GANGADHARAN, ODAKADAN ESTATE, KUPPAKKAYAM, MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT 686513** **12. KRISHNANKUTTY,65 YEARS S/O LATE GOPALAN, RESIDING AT NAMBIANTHODI, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD TALUK 678004** **13. GOPALAN,22 YEARS S/O LATE CHATHAPPAN, RESIDING WITH KITTU AT H. NO 230, 10TH MILE, VELIKKAD, PALAKKAD TALUK 678592** **14. SWAMINATHAN,54 YEARS S/O LATE KANNAPPAN, BAKERY BUSNESS, CHUTTIKKAL, ARAMANA, KOTHAGIRI, NILAGIRI DISTRICT 641526** **15. KESAVAN,48 YEARS** - **S/O LATE KANNAPPAN, CHUTTIKKAL, ARAMANA, KOTHAGIRI,NILARIGI DISTRICT 641526** **16. VASU,49 YEARS S/O LATE KANNAPPAN, VASU BAKERY, KARADACHATTAM, KODANAD, KOTHAGIRI, NILAGIRI 641526** **17. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O LATE KANNAPPAN, KARADACHATTAM, KODANAD, KOTHAGIRI, NILAGIRI 641526** **18. LEELA,** - **W/O RAGAVAN, VISWAKARMAPURI, AYYAPPANKAVU, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD 678001** **19. SANATHA,50 YEARS W/O VIJAYAN, POOTHANUR, PALAKKAD TALUK 678001** **20. KAMALAM ALIAS NAANI,70 YEARS W/O LATE RAJAN, NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK 678001** **OP(C).No. 2988 of 2014 (O)** **3** **---------------------------** ## **21. PREMANATAN,42 YEARS** - **S/O LATE RAJAN, NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK (DIED) 678004** **22. BALASUBRAMANNIAN,37 YEARS** - **S/O LATE RAJAN, NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK (DIED) 678004** **23. KUNHIKANNAN ALIAS R. MANI,54 YEARS S/O LATE RAMAN, 20/3, NEW A.V.M GARDENS, INDIRA GARDEN ROAD, UPPLIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641004** **24. P. CHANDRAN,50 YEARS** - **S/O LATE PONNU, S.R NO 69/3, PALLI STREET, SUGARCANE BREEDING INSTITUTE, VEERAKERALAM, COIMBATORE 641004** ## **25. KAMALAM,** - **W/O RAMANKUTTY, RESIDING AT 243/3,10TH MILE, VELIKKAD, PALAKKAD TALUK 678592** **26. GOPINATHAN,62 YEARS** - **S/O LATE MAANI, NAVAKKODE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK 678001** ## **27. PREMA,** - **W/O LATE PREMANDHAN, NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK 678001** ## **28. SANDHYA,** - **D/O LATE PREMANDHAN, NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK 678001** **29. RENJITH (MINOR), 15 YEARS S/O LATE PREMANDHAN, REPRESENTED BY PREMA, W/O LATE PREMANDHAN,41 YEARS, NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK 678001** **30. SUNITHA,30 YEARS W/O LATE BALASUBRAMANNIAN, NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK 678001** **31. B. NIKHIL (MINOR),12 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER SUNITHA, W/O LATE BALASUBRAMANNIAN, 30 YEARS, NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TLAUK 678001** **32. NITHIN, (MINOR), 8 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GUARDINA MOTHER SUNITHA, W/O. LATE BALASUBRAMANNIAN, 30 YEARS NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD TALUK - 678 001** **OP(C).No. 2988 of 2014 (O) ---------------------------** **4** **33. BHANUMATHI, W/O. LATE GOPINATHAN, 54 YEARS, “UPASANA”, H.NO.57, STREET NO.4, DHARSANA NAGAR, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK - 678 016** **34. ARUN, S/O. LATE GOPINATHAN, 33 YEARS “UPASANA”, H.NO.57, STREET NO.4, DHARSANA NAGAR, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK - 678 016** **35. ROOPA, D/O. LATE GOPINATHAN, 29 YEARS** - **“UPASANA”, H.NO.57, STREET NO.4, DHARSANA NAGAR, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK - 678 016** **R1 TO R11,R20, R27, R28,R30, R33 TO R35 BY ADV.** **SRI.C.U.SANGEETH R12, R15 TO R19 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. R12, R15 TO R19 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP(C).No. 2988 of 2014 (O) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE SUIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH RESPONDENTS 20 TO 35 HEREIN AS O.S NO 54/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF (ADDITIONAL) COURT, PALAKKAD** **EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE PETITION AS I.A NO 3120/2014 IN O.S NO.54/2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF ADDITIONAL, COURT PALAKKAD DATED 29-10-2014** **EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 1-19 HEREIN DATED 06-11-2014** **EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO 3120/2014 IN O.S NO 54/2009 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF (ADDITIONAL) COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 20-11-2014** **EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF the JUDGMENT IN APPEAL A.S.NO.66/2011 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD** **EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF the JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.54/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD** **EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF LAND TAX REGISTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAYIRI** **EXHIBIT P8: COPY F the LAND REGISTER ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **A. HARIPRASAD, J. ------------------------------O.P.(C).No.2988 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of June, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional Munsiff, Palakkad on I.A.No.3120 of 2014 in O.S.No.54 of 2009. 2. Respondents 13, 14, 21 to 26, 29, 31 and 32 are ex-parte through out the proceedings. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. 3. The petition was filed by the 8[th] plaintiff praying to refer the question of tenancy raised in a suit for partition under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (in short, the Act) to the Land Tribunal concerned. As mentioned above, the suit is one for partition. Plaintiffs would contend that the property belonged to one Chathu and the plaintiffs are grand children of Chathu. It is their case that they have derived right over the property by **O.P.(C).No.2988 /2014** **2** virtue of succession from Chathu. The defendant contested the suit contending that Chathu was not the tenant, his grandson Kannappan was the tenant. Therefore, the defendants would contend that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Fact that the right claimed by the parties to the suit over the property is a tenancy right is plainly admitted. The ultimate question is as to who has acquired the tenancy right. A similar situation was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in **Balakrishnan Nair v. Radha Amma [1987 (1) KLT 195]** . It was observed by the Division Bench as follows: “With great respect, we agree with the learned Judge in so far as the principle behind this illustrations is concerned. That is a case where there is no dispute regarding ownership right. Ownership right is set up in two different persons. In the case of claims of tenancy right under rival claimants to title, the question of tenancy right is in effect the question of title. The question of title can be decided in the suit itself and no reference is called for.” **O.P.(C).No.2988 /2014** **3** 5. A learned Single Judge of this Court followed this decision and re-stated the view in **Sivakami v. Kumaraswamy [1998 KHC 581]** . Since the law is well settled, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Hence this Original Petition is dismissed. SD/- **A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE** JV