Allowed

Vasanthi Rohini, v. Chellappan Sahadevan

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022FAO (RO)/18/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a remand order because the Munsiff Court cannot adjudicate on the validity of tenancy findings made under the Kerala Land Reforms Act by the Land Tribunal. The court allowed the appeal and mandated disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Remand order set aside; parties to appear before first appellate court by 05/08/2022 for disposal within three months.

Vasanthi Rohini, Vs Chellappan Sahadevan — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

FAO (RO) NO. 18 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2021 IN AS 24/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE, ATTINGAL WHICH IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

¶7

29.02.2012 IN I.A. NO.306/1985 IN O.S. NO.77/1969 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶8

MUNSIFF'S COURT OF ATTINGAL

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 14 TO 18/COUNTER PETITIONERS 14 TO 18:

¶10

1 VASANTHI ROHINI,

¶11

AGED 59 YEARS MULLUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM MURI,KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶12

2 VASANTHI SINDHU, AGED 57 YEARS, KADINAMKULAM MURI,KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶13

3 VASANTHI BINDHU, AGED 49 YEARS, KADINAMKULAM MURI,KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶14

4 VASANTHI BINU, AGED 45 YEARS, KADINAMKULAM MURI,KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶15

5 VASANTHI SANDHYA, AGED 43 YEARS, KADINAMKULAM MURI,KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. D.SAJEEV SMT.LIGEY ANTONY

¶16

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 12:

¶17

1 CHELLAPPAN SAHADEVAN, AGED 64 YEARS, MANAKKATTU VILAKATHU VEEDU, FROM VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM-695 101.

¶18

2 CHELLAPPAN SUDHAKARAN, AGED 69 YEARS, MANAKKATTU VILAKATHU VEEDU, FROM VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU,KADINAMKULAM-695 101.

¶19

*3 NARAYANAN SASIDHARAN, (DELETED) AGED 72 YEARS, PALAVILA VEEDU,PEDIKKETTU MURI, CHERUVAKKAL,PALANTHI-695 101.

¶20

FAO (RO) NO.18 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

*4	KALU THANKAMMA,(DELETED)
	AGED 85 YEARS,
	KASALAKKAKATHU VEEDU,
	CHANNANKARA,KADINAMKULAM MURI,
	KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE-695 101.
*5	KUTTAPPAN SUDARSANAN,(DELETED)
	AGED 50 YEARS,
	VETTIKKATTU VEEDU, POTTUMUKKU, NANNIYODU, NEDUMANGADU TALUK-695 541.
*6	BHARGAVI NAGAMMA,(DELETED)
	AGED 71 YEARS,
	PURATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU,
	KADINAMKULAM-695 101.
*7	BHARGAVI VIJAYAMMA,(DELETED)
	AGED 62 YEARS,
	PURATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM-695 101.
*8	BHARGAVI VALSALA,(DELETED)
	AGED 55 YEARS,
	PURATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM-695 101.
*9	BHARGAVI BABY,(DELETED) AGED 50 YEARS,
	PURATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM-695 101.
*10	CHELLAPPAN SASIDHARAN,(DELETED) AGED 53 YEARS,
	PURATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM-695 101.
*11	PRABHAKARAN INDIRA,(DELETED)
	AGED 72 YEARS,
	SUNITHA VILASAM, VETTUKADU, VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
*12	PRABHAKARAN ANIL,(DELETED)
	AGED 40 YEARS,
	SUNITHA VILASAM,VETTUKADU, VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
*13	PRABHAKARAN SUNIL,(DELETED)
	AGED 38 YEARS,
	SUNITHA VILASAM,VETTUKADU, VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
*14	PRABHAKARAN SUNITHA,(DELETED)
	AGED 35 YEARS,
	SUNITHA VILASAM,VETTUKADU, VELI,
	THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶23

*RESPONDENTS 3 TO 14 ARE REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 29/11/2021 IN IA.NO.2/2021 BY ADV M.DINESH FOR R1 & R2

¶24

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR

¶25

ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶26

FOLLOWING:

¶27

FAO (RO) NO.18 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2022

¶31

It is a suit of the year 1969. At first,

¶32

an ex parte preliminary decree was passed by which the question of tenancy claimed by the defendant was made over to the final decree stage, that too, without knowing the scope and ambit of matters that can be taken into consideration at the preliminary decree and final decree stage. A matter which has to be decided at the preliminary decree stage cannot be made over to the final decree stage. The basic principles governing passing of preliminary decree and final decree and matters that can be adjudicated at the

¶33

respective stages have been thus overlooked by the trial court.

¶34

Strange enough, none of the parties

¶35

took the matter before any appellate court.

¶36

On the other hand, at the final decree stage,

¶37

FAO (RO) NO.18 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

the question of tenancy claimed by the defendant was referred under Section 125 of

¶40

the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The concerned Land Tribunal even without deputing a Revenue

¶41

Inspector for inspection and without

¶42

sufficient evidence, based on the pleading passed an order fixing tenancy under Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, based on which the final decree application was dismissed by the trial court.

¶43

Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate court. The first appellate court adopted an

¶44

easy walk over of the matter by ordering remand to the trial court though the trial court is not empowered to go into the question of tenancy fixed under Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The remand order is without any purpose and it will not serve any

¶45

purpose since the Munsiff Court is not

¶46

empowered to go into the question of legality or sustainability of the finding rendered by

¶47

¶48

FAO (RO) NO.18 OF 2021

¶49

the concerned Land Tribunal, that too, overlooking Rule 23, 23 A and 24 of Order XLI C.P.C. Hence, the order of remand will stand set aside. The parties shall appear before the first appellate court on 05/08/2022 to proceed further with the appeal. The first appellate court shall dispose of the appeal within a time schedule of three months from the date of appearance of parties.

¶50

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

¶51

It is a suit of the year 1969 and now 53 years have elapsed. What is stated above is illustrative of how our system is functioning at the level of subordinate judiciary. It is highly injurious and damaging to the justice delivery system. Immediate and urgent attention is required in the matter so as to avoid this kind of misfortune in future. Registry is directed to place it before the Administrative Committee so as to include the

¶52

basic principles governing the area while

¶53

imparting training to judicial officers

¶54

FAO (RO) NO.18 OF 2021

¶55

through the Director (Academics), Kerala Judicial Academy. Some other instances were also noticed by this Court with respect to total failure of the system and some of them were brought to the notice of the Director (Academics), Kerala Judicial Academy for

¶56

future guidance.

¶57

The Registry is also directed to send a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the impugned judgment to the Director (Academics),

¶58

Kerala Judicial Academy for future guidance.

Sd/-

P. SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SKP/7-7

Vasanthi Rohini, v. Chellappan Sahadevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanthi Rohini, v. Chellappan Sahadevan

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

Sibu I.N. Vs Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

Neena Vs Manappuram Assets Finance

Nirmala Rajan Vs Mohanasundaram

V.G.Kammath Vs Elsy

Sugathan, Vs Chamunni

Jayanandakumar Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.