Allowed

K.Babu v. K.M.Parveen

Kerala HC4 Nov 2016RFA/227/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a lower court order that adjudicated tenancy rights without a required reference to the Land Tribunal. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal with a direction to refer the tenancy question to the Land Tribunal and allow the amendment of the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; suit remanded for fresh disposal with reference of tenancy question to Land Tribunal; plaint amendment allowed.

K.Babu Vs K.M.Parveen — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶6

RFA.No. 227 of 2016 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 210/2013 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 23-01-2016

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PLAINTIFFS:

¶9

K.BABU, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI GOVINDAN NAIR,

¶10

CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM,

¶11

KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶12

VISWANATHA KURUP, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI GOVINDAN NAIR, CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM,

¶13

KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶14

SASIDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI GOVINDAN NAIR, CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶15

RAJESWARAN, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI GOVINDAN NAIR, CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶16

BALAMANI, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI GOVINDAN NAIR, CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶17

USHA, AGED 57 YEARS D/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI GOVINDAN NAIR, CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶18

RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI APPU NAIR, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, EDAKKAD DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶19

VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI APPU NAIR, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, EDAKKAD DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶20

RFA.NO.227 OF 2016

¶21

: 2 :

¶22

NALINI, AGED 57 YEARS D/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI APPU NAIR, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, EDAKKAD DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶23

RAJENDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PALAKUNNATH KOLAYI APPU NAIR, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, EDAKKAD DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SRI.P.N.HARISH BABU SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS:

¶25

K.M.PARVEEN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O.K.M.MOHAMMEDKUTTY @ BACHAN, KOYAPPATHODI BUNGLAW, P.O.MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE - 673 009.

¶26

K.M.SHEBEEN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O.K.M.MUHAMMEDKUTTY @ BACHAN, KOYAPPATHODI BUNGLAW, P.O.MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE - 673 009.

¶27

KALLADI CHOMMERI JAMZHAD AHAMED AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE JAMEELA, KOYAPPATHODI BUNGLAW, P.O.MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE - 673 009.

¶28

JUNAIZA KEMAPPA K.C., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.LATE JAMEELA, KOYAPPATHODI BUNGLAW, P.O.MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE - 673 009.

¶29

1. SUBAIDA, AGED 40 YEARS D/O.LATE JAMEELA AND W/O.KUHAHAMED HAJI, KOYAPPATHODI BUNGLAW, P.O.MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE - 673 009. (DIED)

¶30

MUTHAGURU CHARITABLE TRUST, THAMARASSERY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, MANGALATH SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KANNOTH, KODENCHERY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 580.

¶31

RFA.NO.227 OF 2016

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

ELSON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (REG NO.U52/90, KL2004 PTCO/7186, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANGALATH SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KANNOTH, KODENCHERY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 580. AMINA JUNAIS, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.CHEMMERI JUNAIS KEMAPPA, "SRENDIP" DESODHARAI CROSS ROAD, (DC ROAD), P.O.MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE - 673 009. PETRO GOLD CHARITABLE TRUST, (REG.NO.19/4/09), REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, MANGALATH SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KANNOTH, KODENCHERY AMSOM, DESOM P.O., KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 580. PETRO GOLD HEAVY ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SOURCE PVT. LTD (REG.NO.U3006 KL 1994 PTC 008474) REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANGALATH SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KANNOTH, KODENCHERY, AMSOM DESOM P.O., KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 580. ELSON TRADERS PRIVATE LTD (REG.NO.U52190 KL 2004 PTV 017186), REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANGALATH SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KANNOTH, KODENCHERY AMSOM DESOM P.O., KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 580. SALAHUDHEEN, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.MARAKKAR, CHERUKADATH VALAPPIL, KOTTAPPADI VILLAGE, NELLIMUNDA DESOM, P.O.MEPPADI, KOZHIKODE - 673 577. HASIF, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.MAMU, SAINABAS, PERUMACHERI DESOM, P.O.KOLACHERY, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR - 670 601.

¶34

RFA.NO.227 OF 2016

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

ADUL RAHIMAN, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.KOYASSAN, ELLATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, KAPPUR VILLAGE, KAPPUR DESOM, P.O.KAPPUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD - 679 522.

¶37

MANSOOR ALI. K.K., AGED 27 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, TEACHER, KANNIHIKULAYAN HOUSE, VAILATHOOR, P.O.PONMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676 106.

¶38

DR.SHAHUL HAMMED, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.A.P.MUHAMMED HAJI AREEKADAN PADIKTHODI NAGAR, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KUTTOR NORTH - 676 501, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶39

T.P.UNAIS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, THEYYAMPATTIL P.O., KALLARMANGALAM, MUKKAM VILLAGE, KALLARMANGALAM DESOM, TIRUR - 676 553.

¶40

K.K.SHEMEEN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.P.K.MUTHUKOYA, KUNNANKULAM KALPANI VILLAGE, KALPANI DESOM, P.O.KALPANI, KALPANI TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 682 557.

¶41

RAMLA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KUTTIYIL PAZHANHI, PAZHANHI VILLAGE, PERUMTHURUTHY DESOM, P.O.PERUMTHURUTHY, THRISSUR - 680 542.

¶42

M/S.CORP VALE PROJECT PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SULAIMAN PUTHIYEDATH, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED KOYA PUTHIYEDATH, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN OFFICE INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 004.

¶43

ADDL. 21. K.V.KUNJAHAMMED KOYA KOYAPPATHODI BUNGLOW MALAPPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 009.

¶44

RFA.NO.227 OF 2016

¶45

: 5 :

¶46

ADDL. 22. K.V.BASHEER AHAMMED 1/3333A, EAST HILL ROAD WEST HILL P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 005. * ADDL.23. HASEEB AHAMMED KOYAPPATHODI BUNGLOW MALAPPARAMBA P.O. KOZHIKODE - 673 009. * ADDL.24. VAHEEDA MUHAMMED W/O.P.M.MUHAMMED KOYA KOYAPPATHODI BUNGLOW MALAPPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 009. * ADDL.25. FASEELA NURUDEEN, I-47 (NEW 26) 10^th STREET, ANNA NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI - 600 102 TAMIL NADU. (ADDL. RESPONDENTS 21 TO 25 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.2450/2016 DATED 4.11.2016) R1, R2 BY ADV. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH R12,R13,R14 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.HASSAN ( CAVEATOR ) R12,R13,R14 BY ADV. SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE R15-R20 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM R15-R20 BY ADV. SRI.B.G.BHASKAR R21-R25 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN.

¶47

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON 04.11.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶49

--------------------R.F.A.No.227 of 2016

¶50

¶51

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2016

¶52

J U D G M E N T

¶53

Chitambaresh, J.

¶54

A jurisdictional error has been committed by the court below in considering the question of tenancy without reference to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The statutory provision is to the following effect:

¶55

“125. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts:-

¶56

(1) x x x x (2) x x x x

¶57

(3) If in any suit or other proceedings any question regarding rights of a tenant or of a kudikidappukaran (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran) arises, the Civil Court shall stay the suit or other proceeding and refer such question to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the land or part thereof is situate together with the relevant records for the decision of that question only.”

¶58

The cardinal issue to be decided in the suit is as to whether the defendants are entitled to fixity of tenure in the suit for recovery of possession on title and for damages for use and occupation. The plaintiffs assert that the plaint schedule property was a plantation on the date of lease and hence exempted under Section 3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The defendants on the

¶59

RFA.No.227/2016

¶60

¶61

other hand maintain that the property are hill tracts and paddy fields and therefore not a plantation falling within the exempted category. The plaintiffs claim to be the legal heirs of the original lessor whereas the defendants claim to be the assignees from tenants entitled to fixity of tenure.

¶62

This is not a case where the defendants have merely 'raised' a plea of tenancy but a question of tenancy really 'arises' for consideration warranting reference to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal alone can decide the nature of the land at the inception of lease and as to whether the defendants are 'tenants' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The matter requires evidence and the nature of the land cannot be deciphered on the basis of the mere description of the property in the anterior documents. We find that none of the documents produced by the parties have also been marked by the court below before proceeding to render the final judgment which is impugned. The parties have even not been afforded an opportunity to lead oral evidence in support of their respective plea in a suit of this nature involving high stakes.

¶63

What is more disturbing is the fact that the court below has not rendered a decision on all the

¶64

RFA.No.227/2016

¶65

¶66

issues framed in the suit as required under Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court need not pronounce a decision on all the issues only if the case falls under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is not so here. The suit in the nature of the contentions cannot be disposed of on an issue of law alone and the court below was bound to have a full fledged trial of the case. We notice that the merits of the amended claim have been dealt with even without allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. The court below could not have granted an order of injunction in the suit overlooking the statutory embargo contained in Section 125(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. All the canons of procedural law have been thrown to the winds in the court below disposing of the suit in a slip-shod manner which is to be deprecated. We have no option except to remand the suit to the court below for fresh disposal and the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the appellants.

¶67

The Regular First Appeal is disposed of subject to the following directions:

¶68

i) The impugned judgment and decree is set aside allowing the Regular First Appeal with costs.

¶69

¶70

RFA.No.227/2016

¶71

ii) The suit is remanded to the court below for disposal in view of the observations above.

¶72

iii) The parties shall appear in the court below on 5.12.2016 and take necessary steps.

¶73

iv) Amendment of the plaint is allowed with liberty to file additional written statement.

¶74

v) The court below shall refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal for a finding.

¶75

vi) The suit shall be disposed of incorporating the finding of the Land Tribunal on tenancy. vii) The order of injunction if any in the suit will not operate till a finding is obtained.

¶76

viii)The court below shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible.

¶77

The Regular First Appeal is allowed. No

¶78

costs.

¶79

Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶80

Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.

¶81

nj/03.11.2016

¶82

//True copy//

¶83

P.S. to Judge.

K.Babu v. K.M.Parveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Babu v. K.M.Parveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shihabudeen K.A. Vs State Bank of Travancore

Gopinathan Vs Sarada Amma

Muhammed Rafi Vs Sayed Ali

Viswanathan Vs K.K.Venu

Saraswathy Vijayamandir Vs R.Padmakumaran Nair

Gopalakrishnan Vs K.S.Sreelatha