RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR Vs. SARASWATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subs.1 of S.18 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, in short 'the Act', which lays down the conditions and restrictions to which resumption of land under S.14 to 17 of the Act would be subject, states "(1) in respect of tenancies subsisting at the commencement of this Act, no application for resumption shall be made after a period of one year from such commencement." (emphasis supplied).

(2.) When the second appeal was being heard by the Single Bench, our learned brother Justice Khalid doubted whether there was not a divergence of opinion between Janaki Amma, J. in Raghavan Nair v. Narayana Panicker ( 1976 KLT 369 ) on the one hand, and one of us (Bhaskaran, J.) in Devaki Antharjanam and others v. Narayanan Nair and another ( 1977 KLN 111 case No. 94) on the other; in regard to the point of time from which the period of one year stipulated under sub-s.1 of S.18 of the Act was to be reckoned; hence, the matter was referred to the Division Bench. Subsequently the writ petition also was adjourned to be heard by a Division Bench by Chandrasekhara Menon, J. on the ground that the question of law involved in the Second Appeal referred to the Division Bench, was seen raised therein also. That is how the second appeal and the writ petition are now before us.

(3.) The appellant in the second appeal is the legal representative of the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1102 of 1968 on the file of the III Addl. Munsiff, Trivandrum. That suit was one for redemption of Ext. A1 mortgage dated 14th Magaram 1062 M.E., the plaintiff alleging that she had acquired equity of redemption under Ext. A8 sale deed dated 17th September 1968 executed by the 7th defendant in the suit in her favour. The 1st defendant, who came to be in possession of the property under Ext. A1 mortgage, contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation and that he was a deemed tenant entitled to fixity of tenure by virtue of the provisions contained in S.4(A) of the Act. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 8882 of 1970 under S.17 read with S.132(3)(c) of the Act for resumption of half the extent in item No. 1 held by the 1st defendant under Ext. A1 mortgage deed. That application, however, was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 8th January 1973 observing that the question of resumption also could be considered in the suit itself. On 9th January 1973 the suit was dismissed holding that the 1st defendant was a deemed tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 read with S.4(A) of the Act. That decree was set aside in appeal, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to consider the claim of resumption afresh. After the remand, the suit was decreed on 19th October 1974 allowing the plaintiff to resume one-half of item No. 1 in the plaint schedule from the 1st defendant, and disallowing the plaintiff's prayer for redemption. The 1st defendant not having been successful in the appeal filed by him against the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, has preferred this second appeal.