PARAMESWARAN NAMBUDIRI Vs. KALYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been referred to a Division bench by our learned brother Eradi J. , who was prima facie inclined to agree with the decision of Bhaskaran J. in an unreported judgment in O. P. No. 3872 of 1970, and who felt that the unreported judgment of Krishnamoorthy Iyer J. in crp. Nos. 1090 and 1091 of 1972 required re-consideration.

(2.) IN execution of the decree in O. S. 623 of 1954, munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry, as modified by the decree in A. S. 55 of 1956, district Court, Trichur, the Ist respondent's rights as a tenant were sold and purchased by the revision-petitioner, who was the decree-holder. The property was delivered over to the purchaser. The 1st respondent filed an application for restoration of possession under S. 6 of Act 9 of 1967. The same was filed on 27-1-1968. Act 9 of 1967 was a temporary enactment, which remained in force till 31-12-1969. S. 1, Clause (4) of that Act enacted that on the expiry of the act, the provisions of S. 4 of the INterpretation and General Clauses Act 1125, shall apply as if the Act had been repealed by an Act of Kerala State legislature. Act 35 of 1969 was passed into law with effect from 1-1-1970. The same contained a provision, S. 13-B, substantially on the same terms as S. 6 of act 9 of 1967, with a proviso super-added. The proviso said that an application for restoration of possession by the dispossessed tenant (which was contemplated also by S. 6 of Act 9 of 1967) would not lie against a bona fide purchaser for value after the date of dispossession and before the date of publication of the Land Reforms Amendment Bill, 1968. The revision petitioner would contend that after the delivery of possession in execution of the court-auction sale and purchase, be had entered into an agreement with a stranger, one Narayanan Nair, received a part of the consideration, and put the stranger in possession on 31-12-1967. The said Narayanan Nair is not a party to these proceedings.

(3.) WE are incomplete and respectful agreement with the decision of Krishnamoorthy Iyer J. , in C. R. P. Nos. 1090 and 1091 of 1972, where this precise question came up for consideration. The learned judge took the view that the application filed under S. 6 of Act 9 of 1967 which was pending on the date of commencement of Act 35 of 1969, was liable to be continued and dealt with under the provisions of the earlier Act, untrammelled by the provisions of the later Act. WE cannot share Eradi J. 's view that the decision requires re-consideration.