The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of a redeeming co-mortgagor are limited to reimbursement or contribution and do not confer the status of a mortgagee. The judgment clarifies that the possession of a redeeming co-mortgagor cannot be tacked on to the prior possession of the mortgagee for the purpose of claiming fixity of tenure under S.4A of the Act.

Headnote:
S.4A - Applicability of provisions of S.4A of Act I of 1964 and right of a redeeming co-mortgagor to tack on prior possession of the mortgage redeemed by him - S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) - The judgment discusses the applicability of S.4A of Act I of 1964 and the right of a redeeming co-mortgagor to tack on the prior possession of the mortgage redeemed by him in order to claim fixity of tenure. The court analyzes the provisions of S.4A and the interpretation of the term 'predecessor-in-interest' in the context of a redeeming co-mortgagor's possession. The court also examines the legal principles of subrogation and reimbursement in the context of a redeeming co-mortgagor's rights and the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act. The judgment reconciles conflicting judicial opinions and clarifies the rights and status of a redeeming co-mortgagor under S.4A of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The case involves two Second Appeals and a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal that raise questions regarding the applicability of the provisions of S.4A of Act I of 1964 and the right of a redeeming co-mortgagor to tack on the prior possession of the mortgage redeemed by him. The appeals concern the redemption of mortgaged properties and the entitlement of the redeeming co-mortgagors to claim fixity of tenure under S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the redeeming co-mortgagors were not entitled to claim fixity of tenure under S.4A of the Act, as their possession after redemption did not qualify as possession as a mortgagee. The court also clarified that the rights of a redeeming co-mortgagor were limited to reimbursement or contribution and did not confer the status of a mortgagee. The court held that the possession of the redeeming co-mortgagors could not be tacked on to the prior possession of the mortgagee for the purpose of claiming fixity of tenure under S.4A.
Issues: The issues in the case revolved around the interpretation of S.4A of Act I of 1964, the rights of a redeeming co-mortgagor, and the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act. The court addressed the questions of whether the redeeming co-mortgagors could claim fixity of tenure under S.4A and whether their possession qualified as possession as a mortgagee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of S.4A of Act I of 1964, the legal principles of subrogation and reimbursement, and the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act. The court emphasized that the rights of a redeeming co-mortgagor were limited to reimbursement or contribution and did not confer the status of a mortgagee. The court also clarified that the possession of the redeeming co-mortgagors could not be tacked on to the prior possession of the mortgagee for the purpose of claiming fixity of tenure under S.4A.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, and restored the trial court's decree with costs throughout. In another Second Appeal, the court set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to redemption of the mortgage sued on. The court remanded the suit back to the trial court to fix the redemption price and deal with other issues. In the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the court affirmed the judgment of the lower appellate court and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Judgment :-

The two Second Appeals and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raise certain questions in regard to the applicability of the provisions of S.4A of Act I of 1964 and the right of a redeeming co-mortgagor to tack on the prior possession of the mortgage redeemed by him in order to satisfy the length of possession required by S.4A to claim fixity of tenure. The matter has come up before the Full Bench as it was felt that there was some conflict of judicial opinion between the decisions in Bhaskara Menon v. Madhavan (1975 KLT 38) and Lakshmi Pillai v Chellappan Pillai (1966 KLT 833). When the cases were posted together on 21-3-77, CM.A No. 98 of 1975 was adjourned to explore the prospects of a compromise; but as this did not materialise, the C.M.A was heard on the 29th March, after arguments in the other cases were concluded We are dealing with these in a common judgment. We shall proceed to deal with the cases in relation to their facts:

S. A. No. 151 of 1973

This is an appeal by the two unsuccessful plaintiffs in a suit for redemption of the plaint B schedule property which is the southern half of the A schedule properly. The entire property belonged to the Manjavilakathu Tarwad. The 2nd plaintiff is the elder brother of the 1st plaintiff and the karnavan of the tarwad. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the owner of the adjacent property. The allegation was that certain structures had been put up on the B schedule property which were liable to be removed. By Ext. P1 partition dated 24-8-1101/6-4-1926 the Jenm right of the B schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. At the time of the partition the entire A schedule property was outstanding on a mortgage of 1075 (not exhibited). Defendants I and 2 were allotted the northern half of the A schedule property (that is, what was left of it, excluding the B Schedule). The 1st defendant obtained the release of the mortgage from the mortgagees. Ext. P2 is a copy of the release deed dated 19-5-1116 M. E./2-1-1941. The plaintiffs sakha executed a superior mortgage in 1123 M. E to the 2nd defendant regarding the B schedule with right to redeem Ext P2. Ext. P2 was redeemed in 1961. The present suit is brought for redemption - we say no more for the present, as there is some controversy as to which is the mortgage sought to be redeemed. The trial court granted a preliminary decree for redemption leaving open the question of value of improvements to be determined at the stage of the final decree. On appeal, the lower appellate court held that the 2nd defendant was entitled to the benefit of S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), and dismissed the suit.

2. S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, in so far as it is material, reads as follows:

"4A. Certain mortgagees and lessees of mortgagees to be deemed tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, a mortgagee with possession of land, other than land principally planted with rubber, coffee, tea or cardamom, or the lessee of a mortgagee of such land shall be deemed to be a tenant if -

(a) the mortgagee or lessee was holding the land comprised in the mortgage for a continuous period of not less than fifty years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969; or

Explanation II.- In computing the period of fifty years referred to in clause (a) or the period of thirty years referred to in clause (c), the period during which the predecessor-in-interest or predecessors-in-interest of the mortgagee or lessee was or were holding the property shall also be taken into account.

The contention raised by the 2nd defendant is that he, a co-mortgagor, had redeemed the mortgage of 1075 and remained in possession thereafter, and therefore, was entitled to tack on to his possession, the prior possession of the mortgagee under the 1075 M.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis