NANU VASUDEVAN Vs. KALIKARTHIAYANIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.32 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act has been interpreted differently by Judges of this Court. The conflict of views and the resulting confusion, understandably dim the vision of those having the duty to decide. Justice Kader noted the discomforting discord in the judicial opinion and made an order of reference on 21-3-1984. We have to, and therefore proceed to, answer it.

(2.) The section which generated discord in judicial voice appears simple, at any rate at, the first blush. Let us extract it:

(3.) The first interpretation came from Krishna Iyer, J. when he was sitting in this Court: Kadir Mohammed v. Augusthy Varghese, 1969 KLT 739 . In the very next year, Sadasivan, J. made a different approach in applying the section. Holding that the section was attracted to the facts, the learned Judge adjourned the suit sine die. Five years later, a Division Bench indicated its inclination to agree with the main decision in Mani Chacko v. Subromonian Moothathu, 1970 KLT 1022 . That Bench, however, took the view that when an entertainment or institution of a suit is prohibited, it could not be received and adjourned, whether sine die or otherwise. The correctness of the latter observation was contested before Kader, J. The contest had a significant support of the observations of the Supreme Court, interpreting the word 'entertain' (though occurring in a Sales Tax Act), in all its ramifications.