RAMA PANICKER Vs. LEELAVATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals came up for hearing before us on a reference for answering a question whether a "varamdar" under a life interest-holder is entitled to benefits of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') once the life interest is no longer subsists. The main contention of the appellants is that since the varam arrangement involved in the case was originated under a life interest holder it could not survive after the death of the life-interest holder. They further plead that the decision of this court in Ouseph v. Jose ( 1987 (2) KLT 228 ) requires re-consideration.

(2.) The question of tenancy involved in O. S. Nos 498 and 594 of 1971 filed by the appellants before the Munsiff's Court , Parur was referred to the Land Tribunal, Alappuzha under S.125(3) of the Act. The Tribunal has numbered the references as O. A. No. 355 and 631 of 1975. These applications were disposed of by the Tribunal as per separate orders, both dated 25.4.1984. The Tribunal after the enquiry came to the conclusion that the varam arrangements claimed in respect of 22 1/4 cents of nilam comprised in survey number 6/4C and 1 acre and 5 cents of nilam comprised in survey number 8/1 B. are true and valid under S.8 of the Act. It also found that one Kunju Mohammed was entitled to get fixity of tenure and he had transferred all his varam right to Smt. Leelavathy Amma , who is the first defendant in O.S. No. 594 of 1971 and third defendant in O. S.498 of 1971, as per sale deed No. 3069 dated 20.9.1971 of Sub Registry office, Alwaye. The Tribunal further observed that the transferee, Smt. Leelavathy Amma, is also a 'Varamdar" entitled to get fixity of tenure in respect of all the plaint schedule properties except 22 1/2 cents of nilam comprised in survey No.8/1B.

(3.) The above findings of the Land Tribunal were accepted by the Trial Court and accordingly it held that Smt. Leelavathy Amma is entitled to get fixity of tenure as ordered by the Tribunal. The Trial Court thus passed a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to get half share of the jenmom right in the plaint schedule properties in O.S. No. 594 of 1971 and item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties in O.S. No. 598 of 1971. As against the judgments and decrees in the above suits, appeals were filed before the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Parur, as A. S. Nos. 41 and 78 of 1986. Those appeals were dismissed by the lower appellate court as per the common judgment dated 29.1.1988 in confirmation of the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court. Hence these second appeals were filed by the plaintiffs.