The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a kuthakappattom lessee to cut and remove rubber trees planted by him, as well as the applicability of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the kuthakappattom rules in determining ownership and rights over the land and trees.

HARUN UL RASHID, J.

1. The following substantial questions of law are framed in the second appeal.

1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in interpreting conditions 6, 15 & 18 in Form No. D of Kuthakappattom Rules by which the Kuthakappattom tenant is disabled from cutting and removing the trees admittedly planted by such tenant in the Kuthakappattom land, when none the conditions specified in condition numbers 15 & 18 have happened.

2. Whether the interpretation given by Lower Appellate Court to conditions 6, 15 & 18 of Kuthakappattom Rules Form D is correct or sustainable?

3. Whether the local authority is justified in recovering any amount from Kuthakappattom tenancy is exempted as per explanation 1B to Section 3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964.

4. When a Kuthakappattom lease has not expired or cancelled or when Kuthakappattom lands are not resumed, is not such a Kuthakappattom tenant entitled to cut and remove the rubber trees standing in such Kuthakappattom lands and is the local authority justified in recovering any amount from such a party either as security for cutting of the trees planted by Kuthakappattom tenant or as value of the trees so cut.

5. Whether the courts below are justified in refusing the prayer for declaration prayed for the plaintiff.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Judgments and Decrees of the courts below are sustainable?

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.514/1990 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Pala is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.3.1999 in A.S.No.6/1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Pala. The 2nd defendant is the contesting defendant. The suit was filed against the defendants for declaration of plaintiff's ownership over the rubber trees and for realisation of the security amount collected by the 2nd defendant Panchayath. The trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that 4.8 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.85/1-2 of Thalappalam Village and the puramboke land having an extent of 12½ cents in Sy.No.86/1 lying adjacent to the said registered land are in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The registered land having an extent of 4.08 acres is obtained by him by virtue of a partition deed and the adjacent purambode land by way of kuthakappattom grant from 1938 onwards. It is averred that the plaintiff had paid kuthakappattom for the period from 1938 to 1968 to the Government and thereafter till 1974, to the 2nd defendant Panchayath. It is pleaded that the puramboke and the adjoining registered lands are planted with rubber trees, that the puramboke land is necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the registered land and as the rubber trees in the property became old, the plaintiff cut and removed the standing rubber trees for the purpose of re-plantation. It is further stated that the 2nd defendant Panchayath objected the cutting and removal of the trees claiming that the puramboke land and the rubber trees planted in the puramboke land are vested with it. According to the plaintiff he had every right to cut and remove the rubber trees standing in the kuthakappattom land. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that even though the puramboke land is vested with the Panchayath, the Panchayath will not get any right over the rubber trees planted by the plaintiff and therefore, not entitled to obstruct removal of the rubber trees. The 2nd defendant Panchayath realised Rs.10,000/- as security amount and the plaintiff apprehends that the Panchayath may confiscate the rubber trees and therefore the suit was filed for the above mentioned reliefs.

4. Defendants 1 & 2 filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant it is pointed out that the Gover