LAWS(SC)-1996-9-28

MANCHERI PUPTHUSSERI AHMED PANNIKOT MADATHIL LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA Vs. KUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER:KUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER

Decided On September 11, 1996
MANCHERI PUPTHUSSERI AHMED Appellant
V/S
KUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals by special leave challenge judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam rendered in two Revision Applications moved by two different sets of defendants/judgment-debtors who were parties to Original Civil Suit No. 22 of 1946 of the Sub-Court, Manjeri and who were sought to be evicted from the suit property by the decree-holder in one and the same Execution Petition No. 543 of 1962. Two separate Revision Applications came to be filed in the High Court raising identical contentions by these two sets of contesting defendants because they had lost in two separate appeals filed by them against the Executing Courts order before the Sub-Court at Manjeri. In both these revision applications the appellants raised identical contentions which were repelled by the High Court and that is how they are before this Court in these two appeals. As identical question arises for our consideration the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) A short point arises for our consideration in these appeals. The appellants contend that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said provision seeks to confer the status of deemed tenancy on mortgagees in possession under circumstances mentioned in the said Section. The appellants who were erstwhile mortgagees in possession of the suit land contend that despite the decree for redemption passed by the Civil Court had become final against them, even during execution proceedings they are entitled to get the benefit of Section 4A of the Act, Therefore, their possession should not be disturbed. The Execution Court as well as the Appellate Court and also the Revisional Court have negatived this common contention.

(3.) In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants/judgment-debtors centering round the aforesaid provision of few relevant facts may be noted at the outset.