2008 Supreme(SC) 228

S.B. SINHA & V.S. SIRPURKAR
Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma - PETITIONER
Versus
Miniyatan Zacharias and another - RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 1231 of 2008
Decided On : 12/02/2008

Importent Point:
A certificate issued under Section 72-K of the Act is conclusive. Once the same is found to be conclusive, same can not be refused to be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever.

Headnote:Kerela Land reforms Act, 1963 - Sections 13,27,53,72K(2) - Appellant s husband an agriculturist was in cultivating possession of five items of properties as a tenant under one "J" - Contention of appellant that her husband had been in possession of suit land from date of settlement which took place in year 1943 - Indisputably husband of appellant applied for and had been granted a certificate of purchase by Land Tribunal in year 1976 - Suit for permanent injunction and for recovery of possession filed by appellant for immovable properties described in schedules A & B of plaint - Trial Judge decreed suit of plaintiff appellant for all items of suit land, except for Item No.1 of Schedule B - On appeals preferred by appellant as well as Respondents, Subordinate Judge while confirming findings of Trial Court as regards other items of properties set aside finding on item No.2 in plaint B schedule - High Court proceeded on basis that as both parties failed to prove their title over property, defendant-respondent being in prior possession over item No.2 of Schedule B of suit property, suit should have been dismissed to that extent - In respect of four items of properties, plaintiff-appellant had been able to prove her title as also possession - Fact that appellants husband was cultivating tenant in respect of suit property was not in dispute - Tax receipts filed by her also go to show that the entire suit land was subject matter of grant of tenancy by landlord and if not from a date, tax had been paid by appellant-plaintiff at least from 1955 onwards - Once a certificate of assignment had been granted in favour of husband of appellant, no other certificate could have been issued unless a finding of fact was arrived at that first certificate was obtained by fraud - Approach of High Court, with respect, was not correct - A certificate issued under Section 72-K of the Act is conclusive - Once the same was found to be conclusive, same could not be refused to be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever - Only issue which, therefore, ought to have been raised by High Court was as to who was entitled thereto, keeping in view fact that Land Tribunal had granted certificates of assignment to both parties - In view of the statutory scheme, both parties could not have been given certificates of assignment - Certificate in favour of the appellant, even otherwise, having been granted earlier and same having not been set aside on ground of fraud or illegality, it was conclusive even as against Land Tribunal - Land Tribunal, hence had no jurisdiction to issue a second certificate - Impugned judgment of High Court being unsustainable held liable to be set aside accordingly - Appeal allowed.(Paras 22 to 33)

       2006 (8) SCALE 75, 2007 (10) SCALE 572 relied upon

       Facts of the case:-

       1. Appellant s husband an agriculturist was in cultivating possession of five items of properties as a tenant under one "J". Indisputably the husband of appellant applied for and had been granted a certificate of purchase by the Land Tribunal in year 1976. Respondents also applied for and were granted such a certificate by Land Tribunal of the same land in 1977. Two certificates, therefore, came to be issued in respect of the same land. Suit for permanent injunction and for recovery of possession filed by appellant for immovable properties described in schedules A & B of plaint. Trial Judge decreed suit of plaintiff appellant for all items of suit land, except for Item No.1 of Schedule B. On appeals preferred by appellant as well as respondents, Subordinate Judge while confirming findings of Trial Court as regards other items of properties set aside finding on item No.2 in plaint B schedule. High Court proceeded on basis that as both parties failed to prove their title over property, defendant-respondent being in prior possession over item No.2 of Schedule B of suit property, suit should have been dismissed to that extent.

       2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       3. Findings of the court:- The Court held that a certificate issued under Section 72-K of the Act is conclusive. Once the same was found to be conclusive, the same could not be refused to be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever. Only issue which, therefore, ought to have been raised by High Court was as to who was entitled thereto, keeping in view fact that Land Tribunal had granted certificates of assignment to both parties. In view of the statutory scheme, both parties could not have been given certificates of assignment. Certificate in favour of the appellant, even otherwise, having been granted earlier and same having not been set aside on ground of fraud or illegality, it was conclusive even as against Land Tribunal. Land Tribunal, hence had no jurisdiction to issue a second certificate. Impugned judgment of High Court being unsustainable held liable to be set aside accordingly. Appeal was allowed.

       Result: Appeal allowed