Civil courts lack jurisdiction to invalidate a purchase certificate issued under the Kerala Land Reforms Act if due process is followed.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for declaration and consequential injunction has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the judgments rendered by the Munsiff Court, Chittur in O.S.No.191/2004 and Additional District Court-I, Palakkad, in A.S.No.159/2008.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the mother of the appellant, namely, Menaka. The total extent of property is 60 cents (on measurement found to be 62 cents). The plaintiff claimed that there was a registered partition in the year 1998, wherein the joint property was partitioned and B schedule property to the said partition was allotted to the plaintiff/appellant. The B schedule property consist of 31 cents in Survey No.447/4 of Vadakarapathy Village of Palakkad District. It was alleged that the original defendant is trying to trespass into the property. The plaintiff had issued a lawyers notice to the defendant not to destroy the existing boundary and the defendant replied to the notice issued by the plaintiff.

2.2. According to the plaintiff, admittedly, the defendant had obtained a purchase certificate for Kudiyiruppu right of 10 cents towards the eastern portion of the plaint schedule property and the said possession is admitted. But then, on appearance, the defendant resisted the suit by contending that the defendant had got a purchase certificate in respect of 20 cents out of the plaint schedule property through an application under Section 72F of the Kerala Land Reforms Act from the Land Tribunal, Chittur on 24.03.1977. On putting up the defence based on the purchase certificate, the plaintiff amended the suit and claimed a declaratory relief, stating that the order passed in O.A.No.1796/1976 is not binding upon him and that the same was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. According to the plaintiff, the purchase certificate was issued without notice to the land owner and therefore, the same is not binding.

2.3. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A9 documents were produced and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B3 were produced. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. Exts.C1 and C3 are the reports and Exts.C2 and C4 are the rough sketches submitted by the Advocate Commissioners. Exts.X1 to X7 are the files pertaining to the proceedings in O.A.No.1796/76 of the Land Tribunal, Chittur and Land Tribunal, Palakkad. The suit was tried along with O.S.No.232/2004, which is a suit instituted by the defendants for injunction restraining the plaintiff herein from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court concluded that the plea of the plaintiff that purchase certificate is vitiated by misrepresentation and fraud cannot be accepted. At the same time, finding that there was a scramble for possession of the plaint schedule property, the suit for injunction filed by the defendants in the present suit was dismissed. The defendants did not carry forward the challenge in an appeal, while the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.159/2008 before the Additional District Court-I, Palakkad. The first appellate court, on reappreciation of the evidence, found that the purchase certificate was issued after following the due process of law and therefore, the plaintiff’s mother is deemed to have noticed about the proceedings and thus the plaintiff cannot disown the purchase certificate by stating that it is not binding upon him. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and hence, the present appeal.

3. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the following substantial questions of l