KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 has arisen in a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for its recovery from defendants 1 and 2, the former being a rival claimant to the property and the latter his lessee under Ext. A2 dated August 5, 1952. The courts below have concurred to find the 1st defendant to have no title to the property, which really belongs to the plaintiff, and therefore to decree its recovery by the plaintiff from the defendants. This appeal has been admitted by Raman Nayar, J. as regards only the 2nd defendant who claimed the status of a tenant entitled to immunity from eviction.

(2.) Counsel read S.7 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, I of 1964, which runs thus:

(3.) There cannot be a tenant without a landlord; and there cannot be a landlord who has no vestige of title, whether absolute, limited or qualified, to the land. The definition in S.7 refers to a person who has been in occupation of the land "honestly" believing himself to be a tenant, that is to say, a person who honestly believes to have obtained a derivative title from a landlord. If a tenant, under a lease expired by efflux of term or under a lease from year to year or reserving a yearly rent made in writing not registered, which is ineffective to create a tenancy, under S.49 of the Registration Act, has been in occupation of the land over two years prior to 1957 honestly believing himself to be a tenant, he may be entitled to the benefits conferred on a tenant by the Act. I do not conceive that the Section is intended to confer legal immunity on trespassers, impostors or their henchmen. One strong indication in the Act itself is the exclusion of tenants inducted on the property by mortgagees in possession. If persons come on the property in a lawful manner are not to be established there permanently to the prejudice of the landowner, can it be assumed that the Act intended to confer fixity of tenure on persons brought on the land by trespassers or impostors In my opinion, S.7 does not cover a tenant under an imposter who claimed a rival title to the property without any substratum of truth therein.