A transferee under a void document can be considered a 'tenant' under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act and claim compensation for improvements made on the property if certain requirements are met, as defined by the Act and established through legal interpretation by the court.

K.K. Usha, J.

This appeal has come up before the Full Bench in view Of the conflict between two Bench decisions of this Court, namely, Veerasikku Gounder v, Korah Kurian,1960 KLT 213 and Moideenkutty v. Subhadra & Ors., 1966 KLT 1125. The issue involved is whether a transferee under a void document would come within the definition of 'tenant' in S.2(d)(iii) of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 29 of 195 8 and can claim compensation for the improvements made, by him on the property. In 1960 KLT 213, it was held that the transferee who had to surrender possession of the property on finding that the document under which he acquired title to the property was to be set aside would come within the definition of 'tenant'. Any improvements effected by him on the land covered by the sale must be taken to have been effected by him in the bonafide belief that he is entitled to make such improvements because of the existence of the sale in his favour. In 1966 KLT 1125 supra, it was held that a purchaser of a property from a person who had no title to it whatsoever cannot be considered to be a person who has made any purchase whatsoever. Therefore, he will not come within the expression 'tenant' in S.2(d)(iii) of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act 29 of 1958. Learned Single Judge who referred the matter for consideration of a Larger Bench expressed his view in favour of the first decision. But, the Division Bench, which referred the matter, has not expressed any view at all.

2. The second appeal is at the instance of the 3rd defendant in O.S.236/83 on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Pala. Respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and respondents 4 to 6 are defendants 1,2 and 4 respectively in the suit. Plaintiffs contended that they, along with their mother, 4th defendant, acquired 39 1/2 cents of property under a sale deed No. 1723/70 and were enjoying the same jointly. While so, 4th defendant-mother sold the properties under sale deed No. 1734/75 dt.17.7.75 to the 1st defendant, who, in turn transferred the property under a sale deed of the year 1977 to the 2nd defendant. 3rd defendant-appellant acquired the property from the 2nd defendant under a sale deed of the year 1982. When the 4th defendant executed sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant, plaintiffs were minors. Plaintiffs contended that the sale deed executed by their mother, 4th defendant as their guard in is void in law. There was no necessity at that time to alienate the property. No consideration was passed from the vendee and no property was acquired in their favour, inspite of the recital to that effect in the sale deed. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 remained ex parte. 3rd defendant filed written statement and contended that he was a bonafide purchaser from the 2nd defendant, sale deed of the year 1975 in favour of the 1st defendant was supported by consideration and that the sale deed is binding on the plaintiffs and 4th defendant.

3. Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court found that Ext. Al sale deed dt.17.7.1885 executed by the 4th defendant on her behalf as also as guardian of the plaintiffs is void in law in view of the provisions contained under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, to the extent it covered the interest of the plaintiffs. Trial Court granted a preliminary decree for partition declaring plaintiffs' 3/4th share over the property and allowing them to have their share separated together with future profits which would be assessed in the final decree proceedings. 3rd defendant was allowed to take the improvements effected by him, in his share, without diminishing the share of the plaintiffs. We do hot find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below on this issue.

4. Regarding the claim for value of improvements, trial court took the view that the defendants cannot put forward claim under S.51 of the Transfer of Property Act as he is not a bona fide purchaser as co