The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits of S.4A of the Land Reforms Act as they obtained the mortgage right but are only entitled to seek reimbursement of the money spent before possession is recovered from them by the other co-mortgagor. The court also held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the protection of S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as there was no continuous possession of the land by the mortgagee as contemplated by S.4A of the Act. Additionally, the court dismissed the plea based on S.4A (1) (b) of the Act as the essential ingredients to attract the section were not alleged or proved in the case.

Headnote:
Mortgagee - Land Reforms Act - S.4A (1) (a), S.91, S.92 - The court held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits of S.4A of the Land Reforms Act as they obtained the mortgage right but are only entitled to seek reimbursement of the money spent before possession is recovered from them by the other co-mortgagor. The court also held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the protection of S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as there was no continuous possession of the land by the mortgagee as contemplated by S.4A of the Act. Additionally, the court dismissed the plea based on S.4A (1) (b) of the Act as the essential ingredients to attract the section were not alleged or proved in the case.
Fact of the Case:

The suit was filed nearly 40 years ago for partition of ten items of properties and redemption of item No. 2, which was subject to a mortgage of the year 1051. The suit properties belonged to an ancient Nair tarwad by name 'Vayalumadathil' tarwad. The plaintiffs and defendants are members of that tarwad. The suit had a chequered career and the proceedings had a chequered career.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits of S.4A of the Land Reforms Act as they obtained the mortgage right but are only entitled to seek reimbursement of the money spent before possession is recovered from them by the other co-mortgagor. The court also held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the protection of S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as there was no continuous possession of the land by the mortgagee as contemplated by S.4A of the Act. Additionally, the court dismissed the plea based on S.4A (1) (b) of the Act as the essential ingredients to attract the section were not alleged or proved in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits of S.4A of the Land Reforms Act as they obtained the mortgage right but are only entitled to seek reimbursement of the money spent before possession is recovered from them by the other co-mortgagor. The court also held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the protection of S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as there was no continuous possession of the land by the mortgagee as contemplated by S.4A of the Act. Additionally, the court dismissed the plea based on S.4A (1) (b) of the Act as the essential ingredients to attract the section were not alleged or proved in the case.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision petition is without merit and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs throughout.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the main legal points are as follows:

The revision petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits under S.4A of the Land Reforms Act because they obtained only the mortgage right, which limits their rights to reimbursement of money spent before possession is recovered from them by another co-mortgagor. They are not considered mortgagees with continuous physical possession necessary to qualify under S.4A (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that there was no continuous possession of the land by the mortgagee as required by S.4A, especially considering the sub-mortgage and subsequent proceedings which indicate possession was with the sub-mortgagees or their assignees during the relevant period (!) (!) .
The plea based on S.4A (1) (b), which pertains to possession for a continuous period of not less than twenty years due to construction and occupation, was not proved or sufficiently alleged, and therefore was dismissed (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that a junior member of a tarwad, who redeems a mortgage, only has a right to reimbursement or contribution, not the status of a mortgagee with continuous possession, and therefore cannot claim the protections or benefits under S.4A that are reserved for actual mortgagees in possession (!) (!) .
The legal doctrine of subrogation and the rights of a person who pays off a mortgage debt are limited to reimbursement of the amount paid, and do not extend to acquiring the rights of a mortgagee unless there is full redemption and continuous possession, which was not established in this case (!) (!) (!) .
The rights of a junior member of a tarwad to redeem property are recognized as inhering in every member as a part-owner or co-proprietor, but this does not automatically confer the status of a mortgagee or entitlement to tenancy benefits under S.4A, especially when possession was not continuous or direct (!) (!) (!) .
The court held that the essential conditions for claiming tenancy benefits under S.4A, including continuous physical

Judgment :-

1. The matter arises in execution of the decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Parur in O. S. No. 434 of 1120. The proceedings had a chequered career. E. P. No. 23 of 1970 was filed by defendants 73 to 99 for delivery of possession of that portion of suit item No. 2 allotted to them under the final decree. E. P. 32 of 1970 was filed by plaintiffs 18 to 30 for delivery of possession of that portion of suit item No.1 which is allotted to them under the final decree. Both these petitions were resisted by defendants 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 20. They contended that the claim for possession is not sustainable without payment of the value of improvements. They also contended that they are tenants in respect of item No. 2 by reason of the provisions of S.4A (1) (a) of the Land Reforms Act. The learned Munsiff by order dated 4-3-1975 held that the revision petitioners are not tenants to be deemed as such under S.4A of Act I of 1964 in respect of item No. 2. The decree holders petitioners were allowed to recover possession of item No.1 also from the respondents in the E. P. Defendants 14,15,16,17,18 and 28 filed A. S. No. 41 of 1975 before the Additional District Court, Parur and assailed the order passed by the learned Munsiff. The learned District Judge held that defendants 1 to 20 cannot be considered to be mortgagees of plaint schedule item No. 2. The appeal was dismissed. The said defendants have come up in revision, C. R. P. No. 1964 of 1978. The orders passed by the courts below are assailed in this revision filed under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The suit was filed nearly 40 years ago. It had a chequered career. The suit was for partition of ten items of properties. It was also for redemption of item No. 2, which was subject to a mortgage of the year 1051. It is four and half acres of land in North Parur town. The minimum facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised for adjudication are as follows:

The suit properties belonged to an ancient Nair tarwad by name'Vayalumadathil' tarwad. The plaintiffs and defendants are members of that tarwad. There are several tavazhies, residing in several places Plaintiffs are members of one tavazhi. Defendants 1 to 20 are members of another tavazhi. 17 persons filed a suit for partition against 118 persons. By judgment dated 1-6-1953 the suit was dismissed, and it was held that 17 persons who filed the suit as also defendants 102 to 108 are not members of the tarwad. This was confirmed in A. S. No. 114 of 1954. In the appeal, defendants 60 to 72, members of the tarwad, transposed themselves as plaintiffs 18 to 30 in the suit. By judgment dated 11-12-1957 a remit was ordered. Thereafter, by judgment dated 29-10-1958 a preliminary decree was passed allowing redemption and partition. There was a second preliminary decree dated 30-7-1960 at the instance of defendants 75 to 79 whereby their shares were granted. The final decree was passed on 31-1-1961. Thereafter, execution petition was filed by the plaintiffs and defendants 75 to 79. Defendants 12,14 to 18 and 20 filed objections thereto and claimed the benefit of S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of item No. 2. Item No. 2 was mortgaged by the karanavan of the tarwad to one Raman Narayanan in 1039. After the demise of Raman Narayanan the mortgage was renewed in favour of his brother Raman Padmanabhan on 10-10-1051. (? 11-4-1051) (By subsequent proceedings, this was held to be a fresh and independent transaction.) A junior member of the tarwad one Kochunni Pillai got assignment of the said mortgage right on 3-10-1052. By Ext. A4 dated 14-8-1086 Kochu Pillai (Kochunni Pillai) executed a sub-mortgage to Kesava Pillai and others of Chembatti Veedu. By Ext. A5 of the same date there was lease back. Kochunni Pillai became the karanavan of the tarwad. Thereafter, by Ext. A6 dated 27-12-1080 Kochunni Pillai gifted the mortgage right in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and 11th defendant (one of the tavazhi of defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis