1. Dispute over fixity of tenure and protection from eviction under Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, concerning a transfer of land for planting trees and residential building status. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.R. MUDHOLKAR, R.S. BACHAWAT AND J.M. SHELAT JJ.
Kuchiyan Govinda Swami, Appellant
Versus
Kalliani Amma Lakshmi Amma (dead) and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1964, D/- 31-3-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. G. Pudissery, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. R. K. Pillai, Advocate, (Amicus Curiae), for Respondents.
Advocates:
M.R.Krishna Pillai
M.R.Krishna Pillai
A transfer of land for planting fruit-bearing trees that reserves existing trees for the grantor does not constitute "kuzhikanam" under Section 2(28) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as the statutory definition requires the transfer of existing trees for the transferee's enjoyment.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Sections 2(26), 2(28), 2(57)(d), 2(57)(h) and 13 - Tenant - Kuzhikanamdar - Definition of "kuzhikanam" - Transfer of land for the purpose of planting fruit-bearing trees where the grantor expressly reserved the right to enjoy the fruit-bearing trees then standing on the property - Such a transfer does not fall within the definition of "kuzhikanam" under Section 2(28) as the definition requires the transfer of fruit-bearing trees, if any, standing thereon at the time of transfer for the enjoyment of those trees - The definition is inclusive and exhaustive. (Para 3)
(B) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 2(26) - Kudiyiruppu - To qualify as a holder of kudiyiruppu, the holding must consist of the site of a residential building and other lands necessary for its convenient enjoyment - Absence of material to show the building is residential or land is necessary for its enjoyment leads to rejection of such claim. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A deed was executed transferring the right to possess and enjoy property for 12 years for the purpose of planting coconut trees, with a provision that the grantor reserved the right to enjoy the fruit-bearing trees already standing on the land. The grantee was required to surrender possession after the term upon receipt of certain payments. The grantee claimed fixity of tenure and protection from eviction as a kuzhikanamdar or a holder of a kudiyiruppu under the relevant land reforms legislation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the transfer did not satisfy the statutory definition of "kuzhikanam" because the existing fruit-bearing trees were not transferred for the enjoyment of the transferee. Furthermore, there was no evidence to establish that the building on the land was residential or that the land was necessary for the enjoyment of such a building to qualify as a kudiyiruppu.
Issues: Whether the grantee under a deed that reserved existing fruit-bearing trees for the grantor could be considered a "kuzhikanamdar" or a holder of "kudiyiruppu" under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, thereby gaining fixity of tenure.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of "kuzhikanam" under Section 2(28) of the Act is inclusive and exhaustive; it requires the transfer of garden or other lands along with the fruit-bearing trees standing thereon at the time of transfer for the enjoyment of those trees. A transfer that expressly reserves such trees for the grantor fails this test. Similarly, a claim for "kudiyiruppu" requires proof that the building is residential.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims status as a kuzhikanamdar or holder of a kudiyiruppu to obtain fixity of tenure and protection from eviction under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The court analyzed the statutory definition of kuzhikanam and kudiyiruppu, finding the transfer failed the former due to reserved trees and the latter due to lack of residential evidence. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. A transfer of land without the fruit-bearing trees standing thereon and without the right to enjoy those trees does not constitute a kuzhikanam under Section 2(28). (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. What constitutes a kuzhikanam under Section 2(28) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963?
A kuzhikanam is a transfer of garden or other lands with the fruit-bearing trees standing thereon at the time of transfer, for the enjoyment of those trees and for the purpose of planting further fruit-bearing trees, excluding usufructuary mortgages. (Para 3 )
7. Does a transfer of land for planting trees qualify as a kuzhikanam if existing fruit-bearing trees are reserved by the grantor?
No. If fruit-bearing trees exist on the land at the time of transfer, they must be transferred for the enjoyment of the transferee to satisfy the definition of kuzhikanam under Section 2(28). (Para 3 )
8. What are the requirements for a holding to be classified as a kudiyiruppu under Section 2(26) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963?
A kudiyiruppu must consist of the site of a residential building, the site of appurtenant buildings, and other lands necessary for the convenient enjoyment of such residential building and its easements, excluding kudikidappu. (Para 4 )
Judgement
BACHAWAT, J.: In 1921, the plaintiff executed in favour of the defendant an Otti Kuzhikanam deed in respect of the suit property. By this deed, the plaintiff sold to the defendant the building standing on the property for 350 fanams and also transferred to him for 350 fanams the right to possess and enjoy the property for 12 years in kuzhikanam right with liberty to plant coconut trees thereon, expressly reserving for the plaintiff the right to enjoy the fruit-bearing trees then standing on the property. The deed provided that after the expiry of 12 years the defendant would on demand demolish and take away the building and surrender possession of the land on receipt of 350 fanams and the agreed compensation for the coconut trees planted by him. The plaintiff instituted a suit for redemption of the property During the pendency of the litigation, the plaintiff and the defendant died, and their legal representatives were substituted in their place. On May 31, 1951, the Principal District Munsif, Quilon decreed the suit. On appeal, the District Court of Quilon affirmed this decree. The present appellant, who is one of the legal representatives of the original defendant, filed a second appeal in the High Court of Kerala. During the pendency of this appeal, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act IV of 1961) came into force. Before the High Court the appellant claimed fixity of tenure and protection from eviction on the ground that he was a Kuzhikanamdar or alternatively, the holder of a kudiyiruppu, and, therefore, a tenant within the meaning of S. 2 (50) (i) (e) read with S. 2 (22) and S. (50) (i)(j) read with S. 2 (21) of Act IV of 1961. The High Court negatived this contention, and dismissed the appeal. the appellant now appeals to this Court by special leave. During the pendency of this appeal, Act IV of 1961 was repealed and the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) came into force. The appellant now claims fixity of tenure and protection from eviction on the ground that he is a Kuzhikanamdar within the meaning of S. 2 (57) (d) read with S. 2 (28), or alternatively, the holder of a kudiyiruppu within the meaning of S. 2 (57) (h) read with S. 2 (26) of Act 1 of 1964. In the High Court, the appellant also claimed protection from eviction on the ground that he was a Kudikidapukaran , but this contention was negatived by the High Court and is no longer pressed.
2. Section 13 of Act I of 1964 gives to every tenant fixity of tenure in respect of his holding, and forbids resumption of the holding except as provided in Ss. 14 to 22. Section 2 (57) defines tenant By Section 2 (57) (d) and (h), a tenant includes a kuzhikanamdar and the holder of a kudiviruppu. The appellant does not contend that he is a tenant as defined in the main part of S. 2 (57). He, however, contends that he is a tenant as defined in S. 2 (57) (d) and S. 2 (57) (h).
3. The deed of 1921 was styled otti kuzhikanam deed . In Malabar, the word "otti" in the context of the deed designates a possessory mortgage. According to Wilson s Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms, "Kurikanam" means "compensation allowed for the value of tress planted, or other improvements made by the tenant or mortgagee on relinquishing possession a lease or mortgage on such conditions." Under a kuzhikanam mortgage or lease in Malabar, the grantee normally acquires the right to hold the property for 12 years for the purpose of planting fruit-bearing trees thereon and to claim compensation for the value of the trees planted on relinquishing possession. Had there been no special definition of the expression "kuzhikanam" in Act I of 1964, we would have been inclined to hold that the grantee under the deed of 1921 was a kuzhikanamdar But S. 2 (28) of Act I of 1964 provides that in this Act unless the context otherwise requires, "kuzhikanam" means and includes a transfer of garden land or of other lands or of both, with the fruit-bearing trees, if any, standing thereon at th
