1974 Supreme(Ker) 55
Judges : P.GOVINDA NAIR,V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI
KELU NAMBIAR - Appellant
Versus
NARAYANI AMMA - Respondent
Case No : A. S. A. No. 42 of 1971
Decided On : 04/05/1974
Advocates Appeared :
P. P. Ananthanarayana Iyer; R. Dhananjaya Shenoi; P. Ramarajan; For Appellants S. Easwara Iyer; Amicus curiae
The interpretation of the words 'burial or burning grounds' in the context of the Rules and the Act, and the application of the deeming provision in R.4 to private burial and burning grounds.
Headnote:
Injunction - Burial and Burning Grounds - R.6, Second Proviso to R.8, S.129(2)(xxv) of the Act, R.3, R.4, R.6, R.7, R.10 - The court discussed the interpretation of the words 'burial or burning grounds' in the context of the Rules and the Act. It emphasized that the words should encompass both public and private burial and burning grounds, and that the deeming provision in R.4 should apply to private burial and burning grounds existing at the commencement of the Act. The court disagreed with the restricted meaning given by the lower court and held that the plaint burial or burning grounds must be treated as one registered under R.4 of the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The injunction decree granted by the District Court was modified by the learned judge, subject to obtaining a license under R.6 or permission under the second proviso to R.8. The appellants contended that the words 'burial or burning grounds' in R.4 of the Rules should not be limited to public burial or burning grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court disagreed with the restricted meaning given by the lower court and held that the plaint burial or burning grounds must be treated as one registered under R.4 of the Rules. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and restored the decree for injunction passed by the District Judge.
Issues: Interpretation of the words 'burial or burning grounds' in R.4 of the Rules and whether the deeming provision in R.4 should apply to private burial and burning grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The words 'burial or burning grounds' should encompass both public and private burial and burning grounds, and the deeming provision in R.4 should apply to private burial and burning grounds existing at the commencement of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and restored the decree for injunction passed by the District Judge, directing the parties to bear their respective costs in the appeal.
1. This is an appeal under S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act, on the basis of a certificate issued by a learned judge who disposed of S. A. No. 1049 of 1968. The appeal is by plaintiffs 2 and 6 to 9, whose suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the burial or burning of dead bodies in the plaint schedule property was dismissed by the trial court. In appeal however, the learned District judge found that the plaint schedule property was used as a burial or burning ground from time immemorial and that the property must be deemed to have been registered as a burial and burning ground existing from the commencement of the Kerala Panchayats (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967. In further appeal to this Court Poti J., affirmed the finding that the plaintiffs acquired the right to use the property as a burning ground for the members of the tarwad. The learned judge also found that nothing in the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, for short, the Act or the Kerala Panchayats (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) took away or affected the rights found by the learned Judge. It was however further held by the learned judge that R.4 of the Rules will not be applicable to the plaint burial or burning ground and that it would be necessary for the user of the ground for burial or burning to apply for licence under R.6 of the Rules or get special permission under the second proviso to R.8. > Consequently the injunction decree that had been granted by the District Court has been modified by the learned judge by making it subject to the obtaining of a licence under R.6 or permission under the second proviso to R.8.
2. Counsel for the appellants contended before us that the basis of the decision of this Court is that the words "burial or burning grounds" occurring in R.4 of the Rules are applicable only to public burial or burning grounds and that this basis requires reconsideration. Counsel submitted that a reference to the provisions in the Act and the scheme of the Rules and the Rules in particular, will not justify such a limited meaning being given to the words "burial or burning grounds" occurring in R.4 of the Rules. Since the respondents were not represented by counsel, we requested Sri. S. Eswara Iyer to assist the Court amicus curiae and we are obliged to him. for having checked up the provisions and for assisting us in deciding the question.
3. If we go by the ordinary meaning that is attributable to the words "burial or burning grounds" there is nothing which necessitates burial or burning grounds being limited in its application only to public burial or burning grounds. The words normally must take within their ambit both public and private burial and burning grounds. S.129(2)(xxv) of the Act no doubt refers to burial and burning grounds and the licensing of private burial and burning grounds apart from other matters which are not material for our purpose. But we would emphasise the word "provision" occurring before "of burial and burning grounds" and "licensing of private" occurring before "burial and burning grounds" in order to understand why the word "private" is used before "burial and burning grounds" occurring a second time in clause (xxv) of sub-s. (2) of S.129 of the Act. The Rules, in consonance with what is envisaged by this clause of subsection (2) of S.129 have enacted that "provision" can be made by the Panchayat, to be exact, the Panchayat shall make provision when there is no sufficient provision in existence for burial or burning grounds. This is seen from R.3. For that purpose under sub-rule (2) of R.3 the Panchayat has to seek permission of the Collector. For making provision under that rule it appears to us that no licensing is necessary though we notice that R.6(1) states that "no new place for the disposal of the dead, whether private or public, shall be opened, formed, constructed or used unless a licence has been obtained from the