IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the legislature by enacting a competent legislative provision retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of any judgment of a competent court the said judgment would remain binding and operative.

Headnote:(i) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-Legislature cannot overrule any judicial decision without removing foundation of that judgment by retrospective amendment of concerned legal provision.
       Held that by enacting Section 6C the Legislature tried to legislatively overrule binding judgments, against parties, which might have become final prior to 7th July 1979. As Section 6C was expressly made operative only from that date, with the result the legal foundation of adverse judgment against the appellant rendered prior to 7th July 1979 could not be effectively whittled down by the sweep of Section 6C. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that unless the legislature by enacting a competent legislative provisions retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of any judgment of a competent court the said judgment would remain binding and operative and in the absence of such a legislative exercise by a competent legislature the attempt of upset the binding effect of such judgments rendered against the parties would remain an incompetent and forbidden exercise which could be dubbed as an abortive attempt to legislatively overrule binding decisions of courts. (Para 4)
       (ii) RES JUDICATA-Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979-Section 6C-Suit for partition and separate possession-Defendant No. 2 took up contention that he was a tenant under Kerala Agrarian Reforms Act-Question referred to Tenancy Tribunal-Tribunal held that appellant-defendant No. 2 was not a tenant-Tribunal s decision confirmed by High Court-SLP against High Court s Judgment dismissed-Execution proceedings-Pending these proceedings Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act came into force-Plea of deemed tenancy status u/s 6C of Amending Act-Claim of fresh reference to Tribunal-Whether maintainable ?-(No)-Earlier Judgments as confirmed by this Court negativing appellant s plea under Tenancy Act constitute a valid bar of res judicata.
       Held that Section 6C could not be pressed in service by the original appellant for displacing the binding judgments rendered by the Tribunal, the High Court and this Court in the earlier tenancy proceedings wherein his claim for tenancy of the suit land came to be repelled and those judgments have become final and binding and were not in any way legally displaced by any competent piece of legislation by the Kerala Legislature. Those judgments remained fully operative against the appellant and consequently on the principle of res judicata the appellant could not once again reagitate the question about his tenancy. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-The appellants, who are the heirs of deceased defendant no. 2, have challenged the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 602 of 1980. The High Court rejected the contention of the original appellant-defendant No. 2, in Original Suit No. 241 of 1974 by which he claimed status of a deemed tenant as per the provisions of Section 6C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as brought on the Statute Book by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Having obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India the present appeal has been filed by the original defendant No. 2. The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs in the suit.

2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at the outset. The respondents-plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 241 of 1974 in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Trivandrum for partition of respondents 5/6th share in the plaint schedule properties and for recovering the same from original appellant-defendant No. 2 and his wife original defendant No. 1 with past and future mesne profits.

The respondent-plaintiffs case in short was that the suit properties originally belonged to one Krishna Pillai Madhavan Pillai. Said Madhavan Pillai by a Settlement Deed of 1945 (1120 M.P.) decided that plaint properties A, B, C Schedule were to remain in possession and enjoyment of Shri Madhavan Pillai, his wife Parvathi Amma and for the benefit of their children and said Parvathi Amma had to remain in possession as life estate holder. That said Madhavan Pillai died in 1955 and his widow Parvathi Amma and his son Krishnan Nair succeeded to his properties. That Kerala Agrarian Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 was brought on the Statute Book on 1st April 1964. Said Krishnan Nair died on 4th January 1968. Said Parvathi Amma by a registered Deed is said to have leased out her properties on 10th January 1969 to her son-in-law, deceased appellant original defendant No. 2. Widow of Shri Krishnan Nair and her children filed the aforesaid suit as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 to 5 respectively in the Trial Court for partition and separate possession of their 5/6th share in the plaint schedule properties which were then in possession of original defendant No. 2. In the said suit original defendant No. 2 took up the contention that he was a tenant under the Kerala Agrarian Reforms Act. That question was referred to the Tenancy Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for decision. The Tribunal held that original appellant-defendant No. 2 was not a tenant under the Act and the Lease Deed in his favour was hit by Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act which totally barred creation of leases after 1.4.1964. The case of oral lease in his favour prior to 1.4.1964 was also found to be not established. The Tribunal s decision was confirmed by the High Court on 31st March 1978. Appellant carried the matter to this Court. Special Leave Petition against the High Court s judgment was also dismissed by this Court on 28th August 1978. Thus the question of alleged tenancy of the appellant under the Lease Deed of 10th January 1969 finally got concluded against the appellant. In the meantime the Trial Court passed preliminary decree on 30th March 1976 and a receiver was appointed who took possession of the suit land from the appellant. Final decree was passed on 27th September 1978. Pursuant thereto the respondents obtained possession from the appellant through the receiver. Consequently final decree remained to be executed only for mesne profits and for that purpose the respondent filed Execution Petition against the appellant on 5th July 1979. Pending these execution proceedings for mesne profits Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979 was brought on the Statute Book. As per Section 1 Sub-section (2) thereof the said Amendment Act was deemed to have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1536

IMPORTANT POINT Unless the legislature by enacting a competent legislative provision retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of any judgment of a competent court the said judgment would remain binding and operative.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the legislature by enacting a competent legislative provision retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of any judgment of a competent court the said judgment would remain binding and operative.