The central legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the status of a mortgage as a tenancy under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, rendering orders obtained from the Land Tribunal without jurisdiction as nullities.

Headnote:
Kerala Land Reforms Act - Tenancy - S. 103 - S.72B - S.4A(1)(c) - S. 125(1) - S. 108(3) - Jurisdiction of Land Tribunal and Civil Court - Nullity of orders - Purchase certificate - Final decree proceedings
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the status of a mortgage as a tenancy under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal to decide the question of tenancy due to the pendency of a civil suit for redemption of the mortgage.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the orders passed by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority were without jurisdiction and set them aside. It clarified that it did not decide the question of whether the applicants were tenants, leaving it to be determined in the final decree proceedings of the pending civil suit.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdictional conflict between the Land Tribunal and the Civil Court in deciding the status of the mortgage as a tenancy under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of S. 125(1) and S. 108(3) of the Act, emphasizing that the question of the status of the mortgage as a tenancy could only be decided by the Civil Court in the pending suit and not by the Land Tribunal. It declared the orders obtained from the Land Tribunal as nullities due to lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the court directed the Munsiff's Court to proceed with the final decree proceedings of the pending civil suit to determine the question of tenancy raised by the respondents.

Judgment :-

This C.R.P. is filed under S. 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act against the judgement in A.A No. 1049/77 on the file of the Appellate Authority (LR), Alleppey. According to petitioner, I acre of garden land comprised in survey No. 198/7 of Punnapra Village originally, belonged to the tarwad of the revision petitioner's husband. On 9-7-1078 M.E. the said land was mortgaged to one Ouseph Kochouseph for a consideration of Rs. 500/- and thousand Kallookadan paras of paddy for a term of ten years. The nomenclature of the deed is 'Otti'. The consideration was not received by the mortgagor. The mortgagee was directed to discharge a prior encumbrance on the land mortgaged with the money portion of the consideration reserved with him and to construct bunds and reclaim a portion of the mortgage property with the paddy portion of the consideration. A charge for the mortgage consideration was created on all the existing improvements on the mortgage property and the mortgagor undertook personally the liability for the consideration. The revision petitioner got the ownership of the property by gift deed dated 19-12-1957.

2.The mortgage right devolved on counter petitioners 2, 3 and 6 other persons. The revision petitioner filed O.S. 254/65 against them in the Munsiff's Court, Alleppey for redemption of the mortgage. After a hot contest, a preliminary decree for redemption was passed on 29-11-1969. Thereafter the revision petitioner applied for passing of the final decree in the suit.

3.On 29-6-1976 counter petitioners filed the original application namely O.A. No. 2741/76 under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The revision petitioner filed objections to the Original Application contending that the applications are not tenants as defined in the Act and in view of the pendency of O.S. 254/65, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question. The land tribunal ignored the objection and held that the mortgage is a tenancy. It further held that the applicants are deemed tenants within the meaning of S.4A(1)(c) of the Act. The revision petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal. The appellate authority upheld the finding of the land tribunal and dismissed the appeal. It is against the above decision, the present revision is filed.

4. I heard Sri. Sukumaran Nayar, senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Vishwanatha Iyer counsel for the contesting respondents. Sri Sukumaran Nayar contended that since the suit was pending on 1-1-70 only the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy. He further argued that the document in question is not a lease and that the applicants in the O.A. are deemed tenants under S. 4A(1)(c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Sri. Vishwanatha Iyer contended that the authorities under the Act have held that the mortgage is a tenancy under the Kerala Land reforms Act. He further contended that In the final decree proceedings the applicants raised the question that the mortgage was a tenancy. The Civil Court originally referred the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal. But thereafter recalled the reference on the ground that it itself can decide the question of tenancy. According to him, since the question was referred to the Land Tribunal, the Civil Court cannot recall the reference. In view of the fact that I am taking the view that the fact that I am taking the view that the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy I am not considering the question whether the mortgage is a tenancy or deemed tenancy. In paragraph 4 and 5 of the objection filed by the petitioner in the revision petition in O. A. 2741/76 it is stated as follows :-

(Vernacular matter omitted ......Ed.)

Thus the petitioner had raised the question that the Land tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy since the matter was pending before the Civil Court. The Supreme Court in the decision in Sankaranarayanan Potti V

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis