PUZHAKKAL KUTTAPPU Vs. C BHARGAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court out of a proceeding for apportionment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) Certain property measuring 2 acres 21 cents in R. S. 299/1 of Chevayur village was acquired by the Government. The compensation which was awarded was a sum of Rs. 28591.88 including the solatium. There were five claimants clamouring for the compensation. While the first claimant (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) claimed the entire compensation after making allowance for a small sum of Rupees 457.50 in favour of the claimants 2 to 4 (hereinafter to be described as the respondents) the latter, on the other hand, claimed the entire amount minus a sum of Rs. 350/- which, according to them, was the entitlement of the appellant. The acquired property originally belonged in janmam (freehold right) to one Vakeri Thannanone Raman Nair. After his death the same was inherited by his heirs and legal representatives. They assigned their Janmam right on January 14, 1967, in favour of the appellant. Based on such a right the appellant is now claiming the aforementioned compensation.

(3.) The earlier history of the property shows that the otti right in the land had been transferred to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant and to those of the respondents by the daughter of Vakeri Thannanone Ramam Nair and other heirs by a registered document of December 30, 1894, for a consideration of Rs. 650/-. The document is marked as Ex. A-2. The entire controversy between the parties will turn on the construction of the above deed (Ex. A-2) as to whether it is a mortgage or a lease. Although, prior to the assignment of the Janmam right in favour of the appellant the parties, naturally, would have been sailing on the same boat as to their status under the deed, the acquisition of Janman right by the appellant in 1967 gave him an opportunity to part company with the respondents and to claim almost the ente compensation to the deprivation of the respondents on the acquisition of the larger estate into which the lesser estate had merged. The respondents, therefore, threw down their gauntlet taking the position that the document Ex. A-2 evidenced a transaction of lease and they acquired tenant-rights in the land. If they succeed in this plea, they will be entitled to almost the entire amount of compensation under the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) and the appellant even with the Janmam right will only get a pittance.