KRISHNAN DAMODARAN Vs. KOSHY EASO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He was a tenant of 64 cents of land - actually 62 cents as found on measurement - under the first respondent He applied by O. A. No. 1169 of 1970 before the Land Tribunal, Mavelikkara, for purchase of the landlord's rights over the 64 cents. While that application was pending disposal, the appellant and the first respondent entered into an agreement by which the appellant agreed to surrender 26 cents of land to the first respondent in return of the latter transferring all his rights over the remaining 38 cants to the appellant. Both sides complied with their obligations under this agreement. The first respondent's transfer of his rights over 38 cents of land to the appellant was by the deed Ext. B1 dated 5-3-1973 in which after referring to O.A.No. 1169 of 1970 it was mentioned inter alia that the parties will not have any further claims as against each other, In his turn, the appellant surrendered 24 cents, that is the area found on actual measurement, to the first respondent. After the surrender the first respondent transferred the 24 cents in question to the second respondent under Ext. A5 dated 27-3-1973. Evidently it was the intent of the parties that O. A. No. 1169 of 1970 shall not be prosecuted any more inasmuch as the dispute between them stood settled under the agreement mentioned above.

(2.) DESPITE the agreement and its fulfilment on both sides, the appellant seems to have pursued O. A. No. 1169 of 1970. The first respondent did not participate in the proceedings, in view of the agreement and its implementation. The application was allowed, and the appellant was issued a certificate of purchase, which is Ext. A1 dated 7-10-1977, for the entirety of the 64 cents. After obtaining the said certificate, the appellant filed the suit for recovery of possession of the 26 cents surrendered to the first respondent on the strength of his title with the contention that fee has got title thereto under Ext. A1, that the surrender to the first respondent was invalid as in violation of S.51 of the Land Reforms Act, (the Act) 1963 and that the first respondent had no rights to be transferred because of the operation of S.72 of the Act, and the vesting of the landlord's rights in the State thereunder.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant Sri. Somasundaram squarely placed his case on Ext. A1, the purchase certificate dated 7-10-1977 issued to the appellant for the entire 64 cents. He states that the appellant's title over the 26 cents of the plaint schedule property is unassailable, and in the absence of any superior title in the respondents, he is entitled to recover the property on the strength of his title. But before going into this question, I shall deal with the points raised in the courts below based on S.13A and S.51.