Allegations of fraud against a purchase certificate justify a Civil Court's jurisdiction despite statutory bars under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the additional second appellant in A.S.No.240/2009 on the file of the District Judge, Kottayam, who is the defendant in O.S.No.334/1994 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2011 dismissing the appeal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

2. The plaintiff filed the Suit for a declaration that the purchase certificate obtained by the defendant in respect of plaint schedule item No.2 consisting of 2½ cents of land and a building therein is void, for declaring the plaintiff's title over the said property, a mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to dismantle and remove the building and also for recovery of the same. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule item No.1 consisting of 15 cents of landed property and the building therein was purchased by him as per Ext.A1 sale deed No.3238/1959 from one Narayanan Nair. At the time of purchase of the property, there were two small thatched shop rooms abutting the road on the eastern side which were rented out to the defendant Narayanan for a monthly rent of Rs.2/-. Even after the purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the defendant continued as a tenant in plaint schedule item No.2 under the plaintiff. About 20 years back, when the above shop room collapsed, the defendant was allowed to renovate the same. In 1985, the rent was enhanced to Rs.30/-. The defendant defaulted payment of rent after February 1989. On 9.4.1994, when the defendant pulled down the shop room and collected materials for the construction of a new building, without the consent of the plaintiff, he filed a suit as O.S.No.180/94 seeking injunction against construction of new building and sought for some urgent reliefs. In response, the defendant contended that he had obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal, Vaikom in respect of plaint schedule item No.2 property. Therefore, the plaintiff withdrew the above suit and filed the present suit. He had no knowledge about the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The defendant and Revenue officials colluded with each other, prepared a false report and mislead the Tribunal to get a purchase certificate. The real owner, namely the plaintiff, was not made a party in the above proceedings and the purchase certificate was obtained after playing fraud upon the Court. Vasudevan Sreekumaran Namboothiri, who was made as respondent in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, was not the owner of the scheduled property.

3. The defendant filed written statement refuting the allegations in the plaint. The trial Court decreed the suit declaring that Ext.A3 purchase certificate is invalid and the plaintiff was allowed to recover the plaint schedule item No.2 property on the strength of title, after pulling down and removing the unauthorized construction. The 1^st Appellate Court confirmed the finding of trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree of the 1^st Appellate Court, the defendant preferred this second appeal raising various contentions.

4. At the time of admission, this Court formulated two substantial questions of law. However, after the appearance of the respondent/plaintiff and hearing both sides, this Court found that modification is required in the substantial questions of law already formulated. Accordingly, the following substantial question of law was re-formulated for consideration :-

“Whether the suit filed for declaring Exhibit A3 purchase certificate as void is maintainable, when