Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944 CRP(LR) NO. 14 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN A.A. 73/2016 ON THE FILE OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR DATED 7.3.2018 IN SMP 75/1990 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, KUTHUPARAMBA REV.PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN A.A/NON PARTIES IN SMP:
1 N.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 56 YEARS SREELAKSHMI, P.O.PONNIYAM WEST, THALASSERY-670641
2 N.RADHABAI
24 GROUND FLOOR, ASHIRWADA, 1ST CROSS LAY OUT, KEVUMPA, HABBLA, KAMPAPURA, BANGALORE-560024.
3 RATHI RADHAKRISHNAN, H.NO.4/85, NR.5TH GATE, CALICUT-670001.
4 N.RUGMINI DEVI LAKSHMI, KAGUMBHAGAM.P.O, THALASSERY-670610
5 N.RAJALAKSHMI, SRI.VENKEDSWANAPPA NOLAYAM, 2ND CROSS, DEPOT, MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT, KAMMAHANDANA HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE-560015
6 MEERA, 48/1972 G, PERMUPOTTA ROAD, P.O, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-
682026 BY ADVS.
B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN A.,A/TENANT & LEGAL HEIR OF LAND OWNER IN SMP & STATE:
1 PRESIDENT, PATHIRIYAD AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY PATHIRAYAD VILLAGE, P.O.MAMBARAM, VIA, PINARAYI, THALASSERY-670741
2 EDAPPADY APPUKUTTAN NAIR, (LEGAL HEIR OF EDAPPADI NARAYANI) S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, THERCHERY VEEDU, PATHIRIYAD AMSOM, KELALUR DESOM, P.O.MAMBARAM, VIA, PINARAYI, KANNUR-670741
3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM-695001 BY ADV SRI.CIBI THOMAS THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.8.2022 ALONG WITH OP(C)1063/2020, THE COURT ON 2.9.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 1063 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN 14/2019 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA PETITIONER/6TH PLAINTIFF IN O.S:
N.MEERA AGED 56 YEARS D/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, 48/1972 G, PERUMPOTTA ROAD, ELAMAKKARA.P.O., KOCHI - 682026. (WRONGLY SHOWN AS R.MEERA IN THE LOWER COURT JUDGMENT)
BY ADVS.
B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.SEEMA RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT &PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 5 IN O.S
1 KRISHNANKUTTY AGED 70 YEARS, PRESIDENT, PATHIRIYAD KRISHI PARISHKARANA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM, PATHIRIYAD VILLAGE, P.O.MAMBRAM, (VIA)
PINARAYI, THALASSERY, NOW AT POWERLOOM MATTA, P.O.MAMBRAM, KANNUR-670741.
2 RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.V.PADMANABHAN, SREELAKSHMI, PONNYAM WEST.P.O., THALASSERY-670641.
3 RADHA BHAI.N., AGED 76 YEARS, C/O.ARJUN R.NAIR, NO.3, 20TH CROSS ROAD, BEHIND ST.JOHNS SCHOOL, BHUVANESWARI NAGAR, HEBBAL, KOMPAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560024.
4 RATHI RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 62 YEARS, NOW AT HOUSE NO.4/85, NEAR 54TH GATE, KOZHIKODE-670001.
5 RUGMINI DEVI.N., AGED 60 YEARS, NOW AT LAKSHMI, P.O.KAVUMBHAGAM, THALASSERY-670160.
6 N.RAJALAKSHMI, AGED 58 YEARS, NOW AT FLAT NO.304, SUNRISE AURORA, SANVI SANKALPAM MAIN ROAD, NAGODANAHALLY, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-670067.
BY ADVS.
SRI.CIBI THOMAS SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.8.2022 ALONG WITH CRP(LR)14/2020, THE COURT ON 2.9.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S DIAS,J.
---------------------------
O.P(C) No.1063 of 2020 &
CRP (LR) No.14 of 2020 -----------------------------
Dated this the 2 September, 2022.
nd
Civil courts may decline to refer disputes regarding tenancy to Land Tribunals if claims lack bona fide substance and are merely intended to delay proceedings.
Headnote:
Lease - Land Dispute - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Section 125
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over a registered lease deed concerning the nature of its use, where the plaintiff seeks recovery of possession after claiming the lease was for industrial purposes, while the defendant asserts it was for agricultural purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim of the purpose of the lease—industrial versus agricultural—was vital, determining that the original civil court jurisdiction was misapplied by referring the matter to the Land Tribunal without genuine cause.
Issues: Whether the nature of the lease could justify referring the tenancy claim to the Land Tribunal under Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a civil court is not obliged to refer a tenancy issue to the Land Tribunal if the raised claim does not pose a bona fide dispute, thereby allowing for its own determination in the matter.
Final Decision: The court set aside prior orders and directed the civil court to determine the case in line with legal principles.
COMMON JUDGMENT
As the principal question involved in the two cases is the interpretation of the registered lease deed No.2211/1960 of the SRO, Kuthuparamba, they are consolidated, heard together, and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. O.P(C) No.1063/2020 is filed by the 6 th plaintiff in O.S.No.14/2019 of the Court of the Munsiff, Kuthuparamba, (court below) to set aside the order dated 18.3.2020 (Ext.P4). Whereas CRP (LR)No. 14/2020 is filed by the appellants in A.A No.73/2016 of the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur - the plaintiffs in O.S No.14/2019 - to set aside the order in SMP No.75/1990 of the Land Tribunal, Kuthuparamba and the order in AA No.73/2016 passed by the Appellate Authority. The parties are, for the sake of convenience and wherever the context so requires, referred to as per their status and pleadings in the respective case.
3. The revision petition is filed by the appellants in AA No.73/2016 against the respondents, challenging the order in SMP No.75/1990. The Appellate Authority remanded SMP No.75/1990 to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The revision petitioners contend that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide on the subject matter, which falls within the realm of the civil court. Therefore, the remand is unwarranted.
4. The original petition is filed by the 6 plaintiff th in O.S.14/2019 against the defendants and other plaintiffs, challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the court below. The petitioner has, inter-alia, contended that the suit is filed by her and the respondents 2 to 6, to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the 1 respondent, who is given the property as st per the above-mentioned lease-deed, by the petitioner's father, for an industrial purpose. The 1 st respondent has resisted the suit claiming fixity of tenure and alleging the lease is for an agricultural purpose. As no issue of tenancy was raised in the suit, the petitioner approached this Court and filed OP(C)No.3291/2019. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the court below to frame an issue and decide whether the matter is to be referred to the Land Tribunal. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the court below, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, has referred the issue of tenancy to the Land Tribunal. Ext.P4 is erroneous and wrong. Hence the original petition.
5. Heard; Sri.B Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P(C)No.1063/2020 and the revision petitioners in CRP(LR) No.14/2020 and Sri. Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both cases.
6. Sri.B.Krishnan argued that in the light of the law laid down in Thomas Antony v. Varkey Varkey [(2000) 1 SCC 35], the civil court is well within its bounds to consider whether a plea that a party is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran is a bona fide contention. If there is not even a remote possibility of the plea being upheld by the Land Tribunal, then the Civil Court can conclude that the question does not reasonably arise in the case. He also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier [2000 (2) KLT 43] and Paravur Puttingal Devaswom v. K.K.Madhavan and others [2012 (2) KHC 640] to canvass the position that there was no necessity to refer the dispute to the Land Tribunal because the question revolves on the interpretation of Ext.P1 lease deed.
7. Sri. Cibi Thomas, on the other hand, contended that there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the findings of the court below, as well as the Appellate Authority. The dispute needs to be determined by the Land Tribunal as provided under Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (in short, 'Act'). Hence there is no merit in both the cases, which may be dismissed.
8. The point is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority and Ext.P4 order passed by the court below.
9. The petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6 have filed the suit for recovery o
