- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
P. Velayudhan And Others v. Kurungot Imbichia Moidu'S Son Ayammad And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property along with past and future mesne profits. He pleaded that he became insane in 1951, was hospitalised in a mental hospital, and was released in 1961, after which he learned that defendant no. 1 (since deceased) had encroached upon the property and therefore filed the suit.
Defendant no. 1 contested the suit by asserting possession since 1947 as a lessee under an oral lease from the plaintiff, and further claimed to have assigned his leasehold interest to defendants 2 and 3. Defendant no. 1 also pleaded that continuous possession for over 14 years barred the suit by limitation.
The trial court (Additional Munsif, Kozhikode) found that defendant no. 1 was in possession as a lessee under an oral lease and dismissed the suit. On the plaintiff’s appeal, the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode held that defendant no. 1’s possession started in 1950, that the 1961 suit was not barred by limitation, and that the oral lease was not proved; the Subordinate Judge decreed possession and mesne profits.
The defendants filed a second appeal to the Kerala High Court. The High Court reappraised the evidence, relied on payment of revenue by defendant no. 1 since 1950 onwards, found defendant no. 1 to be in possession since 1950 as a lessee under an oral lease, set aside the first appellate court’s decree, and restored the trial court’s dismissal. The present appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the High Court’s judgment and decree.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, in second appeal, was justified in reappraising evidence and interfering with the first appellate court’s findings of fact.
- Whether the defendants had established possession as lessees under an oral lease, and the related effect on the plaintiff’s claim for possession and mesne profits.
- Whether, on the findings as to commencement of possession, the plaintiff’s suit was barred by limitation.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff-Appellant's Arguments
- The plaintiff-appellant contended (through counsel) that the High Court was not justified in interfering, in second appeal, with the first appellate court’s findings of fact.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the plaintiff-appellant’s submission that the High Court’s approach in second appeal was improper. It emphasized that the first appellate court is the final court on questions of fact. On that basis, the Court held that the High Court should not have reappraised the evidence and interfered with the factual findings reached by the first appellate court.
Since the High Court’s reversal was founded on its own reappraisal of evidence (including reliance on revenue payments from 1950 onward) and a contrary finding on the oral lease/possession issue, the Court concluded that such interference with factual findings in second appeal could not be sustained on the reasoning stated in the order.
The Court further clarified that its order restoring the first appellate court’s decree would be without prejudice to the defendants’ right to seek relief under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court and restored the judgment and decree of the first appellate court (the Subordinate Judge) granting possession and mesne profits to the plaintiff. No order as to costs was made.
The direct consequence is that the plaintiff succeeds in the appeal and the first appellate decree stands revived. The Court expressly preserved the defendants’ ability to pursue any relief available under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (as amended), indicating that the restoration of the civil decree does not foreclose statutory relief the defendants may seek under that provision. No broader implications or new precedent were stated beyond this case-specific determination.
Order
1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court whereby the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, setting aside those of the learned Additional Munsif, Kozhikode.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for recovery of possession of the suit property with past and future mesne profits. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he became insane some time in 1951 and had to be hospitalised in a mental hospital wherefrom he was released some time in 1961. After he was released from the hospital, he came to know that defendant 1, since deceased, had encroached upon the suit property. Thereafter, he filed the present suit for recovery of possession. The plea of defendant 1 was, however, that he had been in possession of the suit property since 1947 as a lessee under an oral lease from the plaintiff and that he had assigned his leasehold interest in the suit property to defendants 2 and 3. Further, the defence of defendant 1 was that as he had been continuously in possession of the suit property for over 14 years, the suit was barred by limitation.
3. The trial court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the finding that defendant 1 had been in possession of the suit property as the lessee under an oral lease from the plaintiff. In view of the said finding, the trial court dismissed the suit.
4. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the possession of defendant 1 started in 1950 and the suit having been filed in 1961, it was not barred by limitation. Further, it was held that defendant 1 had failed to prove that he had been in possession of the suit property as a lessee of the plaintiff under an oral lease. Upon the above findings, the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits.
5. The defendants preferred a second appeal to the High Court. The High Court, however, on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties came to the finding that defendant 1 had been in possession of the suit property since 1950 as a lessee of the plaintiff under an oral lease from him. In coming to the said finding, the High Court relied upon the payment of revenue by defendant 1 since 1950 onwards. In view of the said finding, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and restored that of the learned Additional Munsif.
6. Mr A.S Nambiar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, submits that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the finding of the fact of the first appellate court in a second appeal. In our view, the contention has much force. The High Court has interfered with the finding of fact arrived by the first appellate court which is the final court of facts. The High Court should not have reappraised evidence and interfered with findings of fact arrived by the first appellate court.
7. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore that of the first appellate court. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
8. We, however, make it clear that this order will be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to seek any relief under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969.
Alert