TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Travancore Devaswom Board represented by its Secretary is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which arises from O. S. No. 17 of 1957. The property belonged to Thruppukuttaro Devaswom. There was a grant in favour of Chittazhathu tarwad under the Service Inam Proclamation of 1068. The grantee had to perform services in the temple. The karnavan of that tarwad one Neelakandan transferred the rights of the tarwad in the property as per Ext. A3 pattapanayadharam on 30-1-1095 to one Threasia, who assigned her right in the property to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein on 16-3-1098. Since Ext. A3 was contrary to the stipulations in the grant, Devaswom authorities threatened action. Knowing this, the grantee took proceedings for resumption of the property from the plaintiff by filing a petition for resumption before the Government of Travancore. The Government of Travancore allowed resumption of the property. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Devaswom Board against this order of resumption. That appeal was dismissed by the Board as per order dated 6-9-1954. The plaintiff, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, filed O. S. No. 17 of 1957 challenging the validity of the order of the Devaswom Board The order of the Board was upheld by the Trial Court but it was observed that the suit property could be recovered from the plaintiff only in execution after payment of the value of improvements The Board filed an appeal against that portion of the decree which granted value of improvements to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a cross appeal. This Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Sub Court. Thereafter E. P. No. 121 of 1969 was filed for recovery of possession of the suit property on payment of value of improvements in accordance with the directions in the decree. The plaintiff then objected to the execution stating that he was entitled to the benefits of S.7B and 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the application and the respondents who are his legal representatives were impleaded.

(2.) The execution Court held by its order dated 1-11-1977 that the plaintiff was a deemed tenant within the meaning of S.7B(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore not liable to be evicted. Hence this revision.

(3.) The revision petitioner's counsel put forward two submissions before me; one, that Ext. A3, which is the document in question, is not a lease but only an alienation as found by this Court in appeal, that this finding is binding on all parties and that therefore S.7 B cannot be invoked by the respondents. The second submission is that if Ext. A3 is held to be a lease, then that is exempted by S.3(1)(vi) of the Act, for it is a lease granted by a person having only a limited interest. The respondents' counsel met this submission with the plea that S.7B did not require that the document relied upon should evidence a lease. All that is necessary is that it should be a registered instrument purported to be a lease. Therefore notwithstanding the finding by this Court in appeal, a further examination of the document is permissible. In answer to the case built on S.3(1)(vi) of the Act, it was contended that S.3 was controlled by S.7B.