1971 Supreme(Ker) 17
Judges : MITTER,RAY
KUNHAMINA UMMA - Appellant
Versus
PARU AMMA - Respondent
Case No : C. A. No. 980 of 1967 from S. A. No. 374 of 1965 of Kerala High Court (1967 KLT, 596)
Decided On : 01/28/1971
Advocates Appeared :
For
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of a transaction, whether it constitutes a tenancy or a mortgage, depends on the terms and provisions of the document, the purpose of the transaction, and the surrounding circumstances.
Headnote:
Mortgage - Kanam - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 - S.132 (I) (a)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the nature of a transaction, whether it was a tenancy or a mortgage, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. The appellants, as legal representatives of defendant No. 2, claimed protection against eviction, arguing that the transaction created a tenancy. The respondents contended that it was a mortgage and sought redemption after the stipulated period.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 and the nature of the transaction in question. It considered the absence of provisions for renewal or payment of customary dues, the purpose of the transaction, and the surrounding circumstances. The court found that the transaction was a mortgage and not a lease, based on the terms and provisions of the document.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transaction constituted a tenancy or a mortgage under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of the transaction depended on the terms and provisions, the purpose of the transaction, and the surrounding circumstances. It considered the absence of provisions for renewal or payment of customary dues, the purpose of the transaction, and the surrounding circumstances to determine the nature of the transaction.
Final Decision: The court held that the transaction was a mortgage and not a lease, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents.
1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 29th March, 1967 of the High Court of Kerala confirming the decree of the lower appellate Court declaring that the sum of Rs 1000 is due to defendants No. 10 to 17 as legal representatives of defendant No. 2 on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint and that the plaintiffs having deposited the said sum of Rs. 1000 on the file of the Court of the Munsif, Cannanore, the defendants No. 10 to 17 do surrender quiet and peaceable possesion of the property described in the plaint to the plaintiff No. 7 with all documents relating to the property in their possession and further that the defendants No. 10 to 17 do pay to the plaintiff No. 7 half of the mesne profits from 22 December, 1953 till the date of surrender of possession.
2. The relevant documents are Ex. B-6 and Ex. A-1, Ex. B-6 is a KanamKuzhikanam. Ex. A-1 is its counter part. They are both dated 1st December, 1941. The transaction thereunder is a composite one, a Kanam in respect of taks 1 to 3 of item 1 which constitute properties in suit and a kanam kuzhikanam in respect of tak 4 of item I and item 2 which are not the subject matter of this suit. The kanamdars are defendants No. 1 and 2. In partition under Ex. A3 the rights under Ex-B-6 have been divided equally between the defendants No.l and 2 but the properties as such are not divided. The appellants being the legal representatives of defendant No. 2 had thus an undivided moiety in the properties in suit. The original plaintiff was an assignee of the jenmi (the land owner) who granted Ex. B-6. On the death of the original plaintiff, her interest devolved on plaintiffs No.2 to 6 who assigned the same to plaintiff No. 7. The suit is for redemption of the kanam on the properties in suit. Subsequent to the institution of the suit, defendants No.3 to 9 being the legal representatives of defendant No.1 and being respondents No. 7 to 13 in this appeal surrendered their moiety in the suit kanam, to plaintiffs No. 2 to 6 and thereafter the suit proceeded in regard to the moiety of the kanam that belonged to defendant No. 2 and his legal representatives, namely, the appellants.
3. The only question in this appeal is whether the appellants are protected against eviction by reason of their contention that Ex. B-6 created a tenancy or whether the respondents were entitled to possession of the properties, by reason of their rival contention that Ex. B-6 was a mortgage transaction and the respondents were entitled to redeem the mortgage on the expiry of the stipulated period.
4. The Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 was in force at the time of the institution of the suit but it is common ground that rights and liabilities of the parties are to be judged under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 by reason of the provisions contained in S.132 (I) (a) thereof. The relevant provisions of S.2 (22) of the Kerala Act of 1964 which defines kanam are as follows:
"(22) 'kanam' means the transfer for consideration, in money or in kind or in both, by a landlord of an interest in specific immovable property to another person for the latter's enjoyment, whether described in the document evidencing the transaction as kanam or kanapattam, the incidents of which transfer include
(a)
(e) payment of michavaram or customary dues.'or renewal on the expiry of any specified period".
5. It is indisputable that a kanam within the above definition involves payment of michavaram or customary dues or renewal on the expiry of any specified period. In Ex. B-6 there is no provision for renewal or for payment of customary, dues. The pre-eminent question is whether there is a provision for payment of michavaram. Broadly stated, Ex. B-6 executed by defendants No.1 and 2 stipulated that they would pay the kanam amount of Rs. 1400 charged on taks 1 to 3 of item No.1 in the Schedule to Ex. B-6 to the 7 persons Narayani and others and their representatives and redeem the same and hold the said taks 1 to 3 of ite