SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Ker) 480

High Court of Kerala
K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
Vasudeva Menon & Others
Versus
M/s. K.J. Plantation
Ex.F.A.Nos.8 of 2010, 12 of 2010 & 13 of 2010
Decided on: 29-06-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:H. Badaruddin, Smt. B. Shameera, Smt M. Archana, Advocates.
For the Respondent:G. Unnikrishnan, K. Saneesh Kumar, Advocates.

Headnote:A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 105, 111 and 116, Section 6(1) and 105 - Fresh contract and fresh tenancy will be ascend at any time if the tenant continues as the tenant by paying rent.

Judgement Key Points
  • The appeals challenge orders under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC allowing claims by respondents obstructing delivery of B Schedule properties (Mount Ruby Estate and Sapphire Estate) allotted to appellants via final decree in O.S. No.1/1964 dated 21.02.2003. [15000255200001] (!) (!)

  • Respondents trace title to 909 acres leased in 1897 for 75 years (expiring 1972) to William Espants Watts, assigned to Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Corporation (1931), Amalgamated Coffee Estates (1945), then Mathew T. Marattukulam et al. (1969 via Exts.A3-A5), M/s K.J. Plantations (1978 via Ext.A6), and further via power of attorney sales (Exts.A7-A14, 1990). [15000255200063][15000255200002][15000255200004][15000255200005][15000255200007]

  • Claimants assert leasehold rights over portions (274.20 acres each), possession, and bar to actual delivery; decree-holders not parties to their title suit (O.S.553/1991). [15000255200063][15000255200002] (!)

  • Appellants contend lease terminated by efflux of time (S.111 TPA), no renewal/rent post-1969, breaches (non-payment), claimants strangers/tenants at sufferance without transferable rights; receiver possessed since 1964 suit. (!) (!) [15000255200003] (!) - (!)

  • Execution court found claimants established subsisting leasehold interest/possession via documents, no receiver possession evidence, not bound by partition decree; directed symbolic delivery, fresh suit for eviction. [15000255200007][15000255200008]

  • Claims not time-barred (Art.128 Limitation Act inapplicable pre-dispossession). [15000255200014] (!)

  • No lease determination under S.111(g) TPA (no re-entry notice despite alleged breaches). [15000255200014] (!) - (!)

  • Assignments under Exts.A3-A5 (1969) valid (S.108(j) TPA permits absent contract contrary); agricultural lease exempt from Ch.V TPA but S.116 principles apply via equity. (!) - (!)

  • No receiver possession proven; Ext.A1 lease unchallenged in suit. (!) - (!)

  • Partition final decree confers possession right; O.21 R.35/36 CPC bars actual delivery to tenants; claimants independent rights require separate eviction suit. (!) [15000255200016]- (!)

  • Lease determined 1972 efflux (S.111(a) TPA); no S.116 holding over (no pleaded/proven rent payment/assent by lessor; bilateral implied contract needed, burden on claimant). [15000255200020]- (!) [15000255200035]

  • Post-1972 assignees (Ext.A6 etc.) at best tenants at sufferance (wrongful bare possession, no estate/transferable interest; juridical protection personal, not assignable). [15000255200022][15000255200037]- (!) [15000255200044]-[15000255200047]

  • O.21 R.97/99/101 CPC require claimant independent possession right beyond judgment-debtor; mere possession insufficient post-1976 amendment. [15000255200047][15000255200056][15000255200057]

  • Claims dismissed; no leasehold/sufferance rights; appellants may proceed per law (no O.21 R.97 filed); improvements compensation not adjudicated. [15000255200058][15000255200060] (!)


Judgment:-

K.M. Joseph, J.

The Appeals being connected, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The three Execution First Appeals are filed by defendants 16 to 21 in O.S No.1 of 1964 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. Ex. F. A. No.13/2010 is filed against the order in EA.No.33/99. Ex. F. A. No.8/2010 is against the order in EA.No.41/10. Ex. F. A. No.12/2010 is directed against the order in EA. No.38/09. The said Suit, OS.No.1/64 was one for partition. Following a preliminary decree, a final decree came to be passed. As per the final decree, the appellants who are, in fact, the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant, were alloted B Schedule property in Ext.C3 Report. The final decree is dated 21/02/2003. The appellants filed EP. No.7 of 2008 for taking delivery of the B Schedule property. According to them, they were constrained to seek police aid. When the Amin went to take delivery of the properties, delivery was obstructed by the respondents in the respective Appeals. The Amin returned the delivery warrant. It was thereafter that the Applications were filed by the respondents purporting to be under Order XXI Rule 99 of the C.P.C. Paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of the common impugned order read as follows:

"2. EA.No.33/2009 is filed by one M/s. South Coast Spices Export (P) Limited represented by its Managing Partner. According to them, the properties scheduled to the petition having an extent 274.20 acres is a portion of 909 acres which originally belonged to Vengunad Kovilakam of Kollengode. That property was leased out to one William Espants Watts Esquire for a period of 75 years as per document No.2254/1897 with certain conditions. Subsequently the lease hold right was assigned to Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Corporation Limited. As per Document No.1098/1931 five acres of Bangalow site was also leased out by the Kovilakam in favour of Anglo American Tea Trading Corporation Limited for a period of 43 years. By Document No.20/1945, the Anglo American Tea Trading Corporation assigned their rights over the property in favour of the Amalgamated Coffee Estate Limited. While so, by Document No.2153/1969, Amalgamated Coffee Estate assigned 410 acres in favour of Mathew T. Marattukulam, 329 acres in favour of Mrs. Annakutty Mathew by Document No.2154/1969 and 175 acres in favour of Philomina Thomas by Document No.2155/1969. The above three persons assigned their right over the properties in favour of M/s. K.J. Plantations by Document No.953/1978. The partners of the above plantations executed a power of attorney in favour of one M.S.M. Haneefa authorizing him to sell the properties. Thereafter, Haneefa executed eight sale deeds namely Document Nos. 2781 to 2788 of 1990. Four documents were in favour of the petitioner and the remaining four were in favour of Meera Sahib, Biyathikannu, Shajahan, Beepathumma, Vijayan Nair, Liyakat ali Khan, Rehmath Beevi, Asgar and Anil. M/s. K.J. Plantations filed O.S.No.553/1991 in the Sub Court, Palakkad challenging the power of attorney executed in the name of Haneefa and also for setting aside the sale deeds executed. The Sub Court ordered to divide the properties involved in the above eight sale deeds into 100 equal shares and 40 such shares are be allotted to M/s. K.J. Plantation and 60 shares to the other assignees including the petitioner. So, according to the petitioners, M/s. K.J. Plantations are entitled to get 365.60 acres out of 914 acres. The petitioner is entitled to get 274.20 acres and the balance 274.20 acres to the other assignees. Out of the property described as item Nos. 1 and 2 in the B schedule in the E.P. they are entitled to get 274.20 acres and they are in possession and enjoyment of that property. The decree holders are not entitled to get delivery of that property and they are not entitled to dispossess the petitioner in execution of the decree. Hence, the petition is filed for declaring the title and possession of the petitioner over 274.20 acr





























































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top