Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
Thayyil Mamno and another, Appellants
Versus
Kottiath Ramunni and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. A. Mohammed and Dr. V. A. Seyid Mohammed, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 10.
LAND REFORMS - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) - S. 2 (22) - Definition of "kanom" - S. 2 (57) - Definition of "tenant" - S. 13 - Fixity of tenure - S. 132 (4) (iii) - Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act 4 of 1961) - Whether repealed by Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Whether rights conferred or liabilities imposed by Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 survive - Whether deed of surrender can operate as assignment of kanom rights.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of suit properties on payment of kanom amount payable under the kanom dated February 5, 1929. The defendants claimed protection from eviction. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court confirmed the decree. The High Court dismissed the claim for possession and mesne profits and instead, granted a decree for the michavaram due under Exs. A-3 and A-7.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the deed of surrender (Ex. A-8), dated April 28, 1939 operated as an assignment of Koran's rights to Abubacker in respect of items 3, 4 and 5 of the suit properties and the Kanom (Ex. A-10), dated May 15, 1939 operated as a sub-lease by Abubacker in respect of those properties. The High Court also held that the deed of surrender (Ex. B-2), dated February 27, 1941, operated as an assignment of the kanom rights of Baithan in favour of defendants 1 to 5. The High Court held that consequently defendants 1 to 5 became the tenants of the suit properties, and were entitled to fixity of tenure and protection from eviction under the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the rights granted by Mayan to Baithan under the deed (Ex. A-3), dated February 5, 1929 are kanom rights, and 2. Whether the deed (Ex. B-2), dated February 27, 1941 operates as a valid assignment of the aforesaid kanom rights by Baithan to defendants 1 to 5.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the rights granted by Ex. A-3 were kanom rights, and not rights of a usufructuary mortgagee, as contended by the appellants. The Court relied on the admission made by the appellants in the High Court that Ex. A-3 was a kanom within the meaning of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960, and the fact that the definition of kanom in S. 2 (22) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is for all practical purposes the same as the definition of kanom in S. 2 (18) of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960. 2. The Court held that Ex. B-2 is a deed of assignment and not a deed of surrender, as contended by the appellants. The Court relied on the fact that Ex. B-2 was registered, executed for a consideration paid by defendants 1 to 5 to Baithan, discloses an intention to transfer the kanom rights of Baithan to defendants 1 to 5, and its operative words are capable of passing the title.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the defendants are kanomdars and, therefore, tenants within the meaning of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and are protected from eviction under the Act.
Judgement
BACHAWAT, J. : The properties in suit belonged to the Muzhappilangad Devaswam in jenmi rights, and under the Devaswam, the Thayyil tarwad had leasehold rights. One Thayyil Mayan came to hold the properties under a Kaivasam Panayam deed executed by the Thayyil taward. On February 5, 1929, Mayan and his brothers, Abubacker and Kader executed a kanom (Ex. A-3) of the suit properties in favour of Bathala Baithan. By a marupat (Ex. A-4) executed on the same day, Mayan took back the properties on lease from Baithan. Subsequently, by Ex. A-5 and later Ex. A-7, Mayan leased items 3 to 5 of the suit properties to Koran. In early 1939, Mayan died leaving defendants 7 to 13 as his heirs. By a deed (Ex. A-8) dated April 28, 1939, Abubacker obtained a surrender of the leasehold rights from Koran. On May 15, 1939, Abubacker executed a kanom (Ex. A-10) in respect of all the suit properties in favour of Kottiath Raman. Raman died shortly thereafter leaving defendants 1 to 5 as his heirs. By a registered deed (Ex. B-2) dated February 27, 1941, defendants 1 to 5 obtained from Baithan a surrender of his kanom rights under the deed dated February 5, 1929. The third defendant died during the pendency of the suit leaving defendants 18 to 23 as her legal representatives. By a deed dated April 9, 1947, defendants 7 to 13, the heirs of Mayan, assigned their rights in the suit properties to the plaintiffs. On October 4, 1947 the plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties on payment of the konam amount payable under the kanom dated February 5, 1929. The defendants claimed protection from eviction. The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court confirmed the decree. On second appeal, the High Court dismissed the claim for possession and mesne profits and instead, granted a decree for the michavaram due under Exs. A-3 and A-7. The plaintiffs now appeal to this Court by special leave.
2. The Courts below concurrently held that Mayan exclusively held the rights in the suit properties acquired under the Kaivasam Panayam deed dated August 11, 1919 and Abubacker and Kader had no right therein, the plaintiffs duly acquired the rights of Mayan under the assignment dated April 9, 1947, and Abubacker could not lawfully grant kanom rights under Ex. A-10 to defendants 1 to 5. The first two Courts held that the Kanartham in respect of the kanom dated February 5, 1929 exceeded 40 per cent of the value of the jenmi s rights in the holding and accordingly the defendants could not claim any fixity of tenure and protection from eviction under Cl. (iii) of the second proviso to S. 23 read with S. 21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. 1929 (Madras Act XIV of 1929). The District Court also held that the surrender deed (Ex. A-8), dated April 28, 1939 could not operate as assignment of the leasehold rights of Koran in respect of items 3, 4 and 5 of the suit properties and consequently the kanom (Ex. A-10), dated May 15, 1939 could not operate as a sub-lease of those properties by Abubacker to Raman and the defendants could claim no protection from eviction under S. 43 of the Malabar Tenancy Act.
3. During the pendency of the appeal to the High Court, the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 1957 (Act 1 of 1957) came into force, and the appeal was stayed under the Act. On February 21, 1961, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act 4 of 1961) came into force, and the appeal came up for disposal in accordance with S. 95 of the Act. The appeal was finally disposed of on July 20, 1961. Both parties admitted before the High Court that the deed (Ex. A-3), dated February 5, 1929 was a kanom within the meaning of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960. The High Court held that the deed of surrender (Ex. A-8), dated April 28, 1939 operated as an assignment of Koran s rights to Abubacker in respect of items 3, 4 and 5 of the suit properties and the Kanom (Ex. A-10), dated May 15, 1939 operated as a sub-lease by Abubacker in respec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
