RAHILA BEEVI Vs. INDIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for redemption was dismissed by the Trial Court finding that the defendants are entitled to the benefits under S.4A(1)(b) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That finding has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) Contention of the plaintiff is that in view of the absence of evidence that it was the mortgagee who constructed the building in the property and also in view of the lack of evidence that the building was in existence 20 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act the Courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 Kamalasini (mortgagee) examined before the Land Tribunal where the matter was referred under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act would show that it was her husband who spent the money for construction of the building and as she has admitted that she did not spend any money it cannot be held that this is a case where S.4A(1)(b) can be invoked. Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the Act has to be construed in such a manner to give effect to the beneficial provisions of deemed tenancy and merely because P. W.2's husband has constructed the building it cannot be held that they are not entitled to the protection under S.4A(1)(b) of the Act.

(3.) S.4A confers deemed tenancy status to certain set of mortgagees. If a mortgagee or a lessee has constructed a building for his own residence in the land comprised in the mortgage and if he was occupying such building for such purpose for a continuous period of not less than twenty years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, he becomes a deemed tenant entitled to the benefits under the Act. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as there can be a separate right with respect to land and building, the building constructed on the mortgaged property by P.W.2's husband cannot be taken into consideration under S.4A(1)(b) of the Act.