The court established that a loan transaction cannot be characterized as a lease, and civil courts lack jurisdiction over tenancy matters under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S No. 349 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad challenging the judgment and decree in that suit. The original appellant died pending the appeal, and her husband, one Anthonyswamy, was impleaded as additional appellant No.2 and her children were impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 8. On the death of additional appellant o.2, respondents 5, 6 and 8 got themselves transposed as additional appellants 3 to 5. Later, additional appellant No.5 died and additional appellant No.6 was impleaded as her legal representative.

2. The original plaintiff in the suit is Karuppayi Ammal, the wife of Chinnu Maniyakkaran. The plaintiff died pending suit, and plaintiffs 2 to 4 were recorded as her legal representatives. Plaintiff No.2 also died pending suit, and additional plaintiff No.5 was impleaded as her legal representative., .Respondents in the above appeal are plaintiffs 2 to 5, although plaintiff No.2 had died pending suit. Respondent No.3 in the appeal (Plaintiff No.4) died pending appeal and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 9 to 10 and respondent No.4 was also recorded as one of her legal representatives. Later, respondent No.10 died and his legal representative was impleaded as additional respondent No. 11. Respondent No.2 (Plaintiff No.3) died pending appeal and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 12 to 18. Thus, respondents 1 to 4, and 9 to 18 are the persons representing the contesting respondents.

3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they appear in the suit for the sake of clarity.

Plaintiff’s Case:

4. The plaint schedule properties were held under Verumpattom Tenancy rights by Chinnu Maniyakkaran, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs. Upon the death of Chinnu Maniyakkaran in 1967, his rights over the plaint schedule property devolved upon the plaintiffs. In 1966, Chinnu Maniyakkaran obtained a loan from Kittappa Kounder by surrendering possession of the scheduled property to him, and a document was executed to that effect, signed by both Chinnu Maniyakkaran and the 1st plaintiff in favour of Kittappa Kounder on 17/02/1966. However, after Chinnu Maniyakkaran's death, the plaintiffs repaid the debt and resumed possession of the plaint schedule property. Kittappa Kounder made an endorsement to that effect in the document and returned it to the plaintiffs on 18/03/1969. In 1971, the plaintiffs borrowed Rs. 3,000/- from the defendant through her husband and inducted the defendant into possession of plaint schedule properties for a period of 5 years. The agreement stipulated that the defendant would set off the income from the property towards interest and also grant 120 paras of paddy and Rs. 475 per annum to the 1st plaintiff. For this, the defendant got a document written up for Rs. 6,100/-. In addition to the promissory note, the defendant also obtained a document from plaintiff Nos.1 and 3, purported to be a ‘pattom chit’ and the defendant ante-dated the document and attempted to get a certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal, Chittur, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act, 1963) through an application filed as O.A 678/74, which was rejected by the Land Tribunal on 15-07-1980. Since the defendant did not deliver the grain and money as agreed between them and in view of accumulation thereof, the principal amount stood discharged, and in spite of a lawyer notice dated 21/10/1980, the lands were not surrendered. Therefore, O.S 349/1981 was filed before the Subordinate Judge’s Court Palakkad seeking the following reliefs:-

A. “to surrender possession of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs on the strength of plaintiffs' title; and on default by the defendant to do so, enabling the plaintiffs to execute the decree and recover possession of the said properties through Court; and

B. to pay the amount