- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sankaran v. Kumaran
Structured Summary of the Judicial Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This matter comprises a connected second appeal (E.S.A. No. 45 of 1975) and a civil revision petition (CRP No. 1762 of 1975) between the same parties. The dispute began as O.S. No. 240 of 1959 (Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum), a suit instituted by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule building and recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant occupied the building as a tenant; the defendant denied tenancy and asserted title by adverse possession.
The trial court rejected the defendant's adverse-possession defence and decreed eviction on 9/8/1962. The defendant successfully appealed to the District Court (A.S. No. 670 of 1962), which accepted his adverse-possession claim. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal to this Court (S.A. No. 398 of 1964), and by judgment dated 9 February 1968 this Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the District Court's decision and restored the trial court's decree for eviction.
Following the High Court decree, the plaintiff filed execution petition E.P. No. 410 of 1968 for delivery of possession. The defendant resisted, claiming status as a kudikidappukaran under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) and filed E.A. No. 3558 of 1968 in the executing court. The Munsiff and subsequently the District Judge held that the defendant could not, at execution stage, adopt the claim of kudikidappukaran because his pleaded position throughout the suit had been adverse possession (i.e., ownership), and thus denied his execution-stage plea.
Separately, while the execution petition was pending, the defendant filed O.A. No. 787 of 1970 under Section 80B of the Act before the Land Tribunal claiming kudikidappu purchase rights. The Land Tribunal dismissed that application as not maintainable because the matter was sub judice in the civil proceedings. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), which by judgment dated 15 May 1975 allowed the appeal, held that Explanation IIA to S.2(25) of the Act deemed the defendant a kudikidappukaran, and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to fix compensation. The plaintiff obtained CRP No. 1762 of 1975 under S.103 challenging the Appellate Authority's decision. The defendant meanwhile pursued the second appeal to this Court against the District Judge's dismissal of his execution-stage appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the defendant (judgment debtor) is entitled to claim relief under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act by being deemed a kudikidappukaran by virtue of Explanation IIA added to S.2(25) of the Act.
- Whether Explanation IIA (of S.2(25)), which deems persons in occupation between 16 August 1968 and 1 January 1970 to be kudikidappukarans "notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court", applies to a person who throughout the civil proceedings consistently asserted adverse possession (i.e., claimed title) and was held by this Court to have been in wrongful possession at the institution of the suit.
- Whether a defendant who throughout the suit maintained a defence of ownership by adverse possession can, at the execution stage, adopt a new plea that he is a kudikidappukaran entitled to protection under the Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant contended he was a kudikidappukaran and therefore entitled to invoke Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him.
- He relied specifically on Explanation IIA to S.2(25) added by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act 17 of 1972), which provides that a person in occupation on 16 August 1968 and continuing until 1 January 1970 shall be deemed a kudikidappukaran, "notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court", subject to the stated provisos.
- Before the Appellate Authority and in the execution proceedings, the defendant argued that by virtue of Explanation IIA his occupation during the relevant period entitled him to kudikidappu status despite the decree for eviction in his disfavor rendered by the High Court in second appeal.
Plaintiff's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the plaintiff's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chinnan v. Gopinathan, 1975 KLT 50 (Division Bench) | The Division Bench construed Explanation IIA and held that, despite its wide language, it must be read as conferring benefits only upon those in lawful occupation and is inapplicable to trespassers. The State's submission that the legislature did not intend to confer rights on persons who entered property unlawfully was accepted. | The Court expressly approved and followed this interpretation: Explanation IIA cannot be used to confer kudikidappu status on persons who were in wrongful possession (trespassers). This precedent was applied to hold the defendant ineligible for Explanation IIA protection. |
| Judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 398 of 1964 (High Court judgment rendered 9 February 1968) | The earlier judgment found that the defendant's adverse possession commenced only about two years prior to the suit and therefore was insufficient to perfect title by prescription; in short, the defendant was in wrongful possession at the time the suit was instituted. | The Court relied on this prior finding of wrongful possession to conclude that the defendant was a trespasser and therefore could not be deemed a kudikidappukaran under Explanation IIA. That factual-legal determination was dispositive of the entitlement question under the Act. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by addressing the principal question in the civil revision petition: whether the defendant is entitled to claim relief under Section 80B, relying on Explanation IIA to S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The analysis proceeded in two linked stages: (1) interpretation of Explanation IIA in light of precedent, and (2) application of the statute to the facts previously determined by this Court.
First, the Court referred to the Division Bench decision in Chinnan v. Gopinathan (1975 KLT 50), which had considered the scope and constitutional validity of Explanation IIA. In that case the Division Bench accepted the State's submission that the legislature could not be taken to intend that Explanation IIA should confer rights on persons who entered into possession unlawfully. Consequently, the Division Bench read the Explanation as conferring benefits only on persons in lawful occupation and as inapplicable to trespassers. This Court stated its respectful agreement with that interpretation and adopted it.
Second, the Court examined the factual findings already made in this litigation—specifically the judgment in S.A. No. 398 of 1964. That earlier judgment concluded that the defendant's claimed adverse possession began only about two years prior to the filing of the suit, thus rendering his possession wrongful at the time of institution and insufficient to perfect title by prescription. The present Court treated that finding as establishing that the defendant had been a trespasser.
Applying the interpretive principle from Chinnan to the established factual finding of wrongful possession, the Court concluded that Explanation IIA could not operate to deem the defendant a kudikidappukaran. Because Explanation IIA was to be read as applicable only to lawful occupants and not to trespassers, and because this Court had already found the defendant to have been in wrongful possession, the defendant could not benefit from the Explanation nor from S.80B relief.
The Court therefore allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the Appellate Authority's judgment that had found the defendant entitled to kudikidappu status, and restored the Land Tribunal's order dismissing O.A. No. 787 of 1970. Having reached that conclusion, the Court held that the District Judge's decision in the execution appeal (that Explanation IIA did not apply and that the defendant could not raise such a plea at execution stage) was correct and must be affirmed. The second appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Holding and Implications
Holding: (a) The civil revision petition is ALLOWED; the Appellate Authority's judgment (15 May 1975) declaring the defendant to be a kudikidappukaran under Explanation IIA is set aside, and the Land Tribunal's order dismissing O.A. No. 787 of 1970 is restored. (b) The second appeal is DISMISSED and the judgment and decree of the District Court are confirmed.
Implications and consequences for the parties:
- The defendant is not entitled to the benefit of Explanation IIA to S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and therefore is not entitled to relief under Section 80B based on that Explanation.
- The Appellate Authority's order granting kudikidappu status and remitting the matter to the Land Tribunal is overturned; the Land Tribunal's prior dismissal of the defendant's application stands restored.
- The District Court's dismissal of the defendant's execution-stage appeal is affirmed; the second appeal is dismissed.
- Costs: The appellant (defendant) will pay the costs of the respondent in the second appeal. In the civil revision petition, each party will bear its own costs.
The opinion bases its decision on the Court's prior factual finding regarding wrongful possession and on the Division Bench interpretation of Explanation IIA; the judgment does not purport to establish a novel principle beyond applying those determinations to the facts of this case.
1. This second appeal and the civil revision petition have arisen out of connected proceedings between the same parties and the questions involved in them being substantially the same they have been heard together at the request of both sides
2. The appellant in E. S. A. No. 45 of 1975 is the defendant in O. S. No. 240 of 1959 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum. That was a suit instituted by the respondent herein as plaintiff for eviction of the defendant -appellant from the plaint schedule building with arrears of rent on the allegation that the defendant was in occupation of the building as a tenant under the plaintiff. The defendant denied the rental arrangement and set up title in himself which he claimed to have acquired by adverse possession. The said plea put forward by the defendant was repelled by the trial court and a decree for eviction was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 9 81962. The defendant preferred an appeal before the District Court, Trivandrum as A. S. No, 670 of 1962 on the file of that court. That appeal was allowed by the District judge holding that the defendant had perfected title to the building by adverse possession. The plaintiff thereupon preferred a second appeal to this court S.A. No. 398 of 1964. By judgment dated 9th February, 1968 this court allowed that second appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the District Court and restored the decree for eviction passed against the defendant by the trial court.
3. Thereafter the plaintiff-respondent-filed E.P. No. 410 of 1968 in the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum praying for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule building in execution of the decree passed in his favour. The defendant judgment debtor-resisted that petition by contending that he is a kudikidappukaran entitled to the benefit of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Urging the said objection the defendant judgment debtor filed E.A. No 3558 of 1968 in the executing court praying that the execution petition should be dismissed on the ground that he is a kudikidappukaran.
4. The learned Munsiff held that since the decree for the eviction of the defendant had been passed by the High Court only on 9 21968, long after the coming into force of the Act, and since the plea put forward by the defendant throughout the course of the suit right up to its termination by the disposal of the second appeal by the High Court was that he was in possession of the building as full owner by virtue of his having allegedly acquired title by adverse possession it was not open to the defendant at the stage of execution to put forward the contention that he is a kudikidappukaran entitled to protection under the Act. In this view, the Munsiff overruled the objection raised by the defendant and ordered delivery of possession of the decree schedule building to be given to the decree holder. The defendant judgment debtor-took up the matter in appeal before the District Court, Trivandrum. Before the appellate court, reliance was placed on behalf of the defendant on Explanation IIA that was added in S.2 (25) of the Act by the Kerala Land Re-forms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act 17 of 1972) and it was contended that by virtue of the said Explanation notwithstanding the decree for eviction passed by the High Court in second appeal, the judgment debtor in the present case has to be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran in as much as be was in occupation of the building during the period form 16 81968 till 111970. This contention did not find favour with the learned District Judge and he upheld the finding of the executing court that having regard to the nature of the defence put forward by the defendant in the suit it was not open to the judgment debtor in the present case to put forward at the execution stage a plea that he is a kudikidappukaran and the appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge. It is against the said decision of the lower appellate court that the defendant judgment debtor has come up to this court with this second appeal.
5. While the execution petition was pending before the Munsiff 's Court the defendant judgment debtor-filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum as O.A. No. 787 of 1970 under S.80B of the Act contending that he is a kudikidappukaran in respect of the building in question and praying for purchase of the said kudikidappu occupied by him. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 28th October. 1972 dismissed that application holding that since the question raised therein was already sub judice before the civil court in the execution appeal which was then pending before the District Court, Trivandrum the application filed under S.80B of the Act was not maintainable. Against the said order passed by the Land Tribunal an appeal was filed by the defendant before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alleppey (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority). The Appellate Authority by judgment dated 15th May, 1975 allowed that appeal and held that the defendant is entitled to kudikidappu right in respect of the building in question by virtue of Explanation IIA to S.2(25) of the Act. In the light of the said finding the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal with a direction to proceed further in the matter after fixing the compensation payable to the owner. It is against the said decision rendered by the Appellate Authority that the plaintiff-decree holder-who was the respondent in the proceedings under S.80B for purchase of kudikidappu has come up to this court by filing CRP. No 1762 of 1975 under S.103 of the Act.
6. The parties will be hereafter referred to on the basis of their ranking and array in the suit O. S. No 240 of 1959; the defendant judgment debtor who is the appellant in the second appeal and the respondent in the civil revision petition will hereafter be referred to as the defendant and the plaintiff-decree holder who is the respondent in the second appeal and the petitioner in the civil revision petition will be referred to as the plaintiff.
7. We shall first deal with the question arising in the civil revision petition, namely, whether the defendant is entitled to claim relief under S.80B of the Act. It is solely on the provision contained in Explanation IIA added in S.2(25) of the Act by Act 17 of 1972 that the Appellate Authority has declared the defendant to be a kudikidappukaran entitled to relief under S.80B of the Act. That Explanation reads:
"Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, a person, who, on the 16th day of August, 1968, was in occupation of any land and the dwelling house thereon (whether constructed by him or by any of his predecessors-in-interest or belonging to any other person) and continued to be in such occupation till the 1st day of January, 1970, shall be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran.
Provided that no such person shall be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran
(a) in cases where the dwelling house has not been constructed by such person or by any of his predecessors-in-interest, if
(i) such dwelling house was constructed at a cost, at the time of construction, exceeding seven hundred and fifty rupees; or (ii) such dwelling house could have, at the time of construction, yielded a monthly rent exceeding five rupees; or
(b) if he has a building or is in possession of any land exceeding in extent three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in any panchayat area or township, either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a building."
A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Eradi, J.) was a member had occasion to consider the scope of the said Explanation in Chinnan v. Gopinathan,1975 KLT. 50. In that case the constitutional validity of the said Explanation was challenged on the ground of contravention of Art.19 (1) (f) and Art.31A of the Constitution. In defence to the said contention it was urged on behalf of the State that it could never be presumed that is enacting the impugned Explanation the legislature intended to create rights in favour of persons committing illegal acts such as getting into possession of property unlawfully and that hence the impugned Explanation should be understood as conferring rights only on persons who were in lawful occupation. This contention was accepted by the Division Bench and it was held that despite the wide language used in Explanation IIA the said provision has to be read and understood as conferring benefits only on persons who are in lawful occupation and as being inapplicable to cases of trespassers. We are in respectful agreement with the said view expressed by the Division Bench.
8. In the present case, it is clearly seen from the judgment rendered by this court in S. A. No. 398 of 1964 that the basis on which this court set aside the decision of the District Court and restored the decree for eviction was that the adverse possession of the defendant could be regarded as having commenced only about two years prior to the date of institution of the suit and that hence the claim of the defendant that he had acquired title by prescription was unsustainable. In other words, the finding of this court was that the defendant was in wrongful possession of the building at the time of institution of the suit but the duration of that possession was not long enough to perfect a title by prescription. It is noteworthy that the case of the defendant throughout the course of the proceedings in that suit until determination of the matter by this court in second appeal was that he was in occupation of the building adversely to the
plaintiff. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench referred to above (1975 KLT. 50) it is clear that the defendant, who has been in occupation of the building only as a trespasser, cannot claim the benefit of Explanation II A. Hence it is not possible to uphold the view taken by the Appellate Authority that the defendant is entitled to be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran by virtue of Explanation I1A. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the order of the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum dismissing O. A. No. 787 of 1970 will stand restored.
9. In the light of the conclusion that we have reached while dealing with the civil revision petition that the defendant is not entitled to the benefit of Explanation IIA it must follow that the decision of the District Judge holding that Explanation IIA does not apply to the present case has only to be affirmed. We accordingly confirm the judgment and decree of the District Court and dismiss the second appeal.
10. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent in the second appeal. The parties will bear their respective costs in the civil revision petition.
Alert