PARAMESWARAN PILLAI Vs. JANAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for redemption is the appellant. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court, but the decree was set aside by the lower appellate court. The facts which are not in dispute are: in 1091 M. E. (1915 A. D.) Ext. P1 mortgage in respect of the suit property was executed by the plaintiff's predecessor in favour of the defendant's predecessor one Narayanan. Narayanan executed two documents on 7-5-1099 M. E. By one document he sub-mortgaged the suit property and by the other he took the property back on lease from the sub-mortgagee. The sub-mortgagee filed O. S. No. 91 of 1107 M. E. in the Perumbavoor Munsiff's Court against Narayanan for recovery of the property in terms of the lease. That suit was decreed, but possession was not obtained by the sub-mortgagee. The dispute between the parties was ultimately compromised. In 1112 M. E. (1936 A. D.) Narayanan's right in the properly was assigned in favour of the defendant by Ext. P2. Subsequently in 1119M. E. (1945 A. D.) the plaintiff purchased the right of the mortgagor, by Ext. P3. The plaintiff has thus become the successor-in-interest to the mortgagor and the defendant to the mortgagee.

(2.) The question is whether the defendant, as successor to the mortgagee, is entitled to the protection of S.4A(1)(a) (read with Explanation II) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as a deemed tenant. The Trial Court rejected the defendant's contention holding that the defendant did not satisfy the requirement of possession for the requisite period as postulated in that Section, whereas the lower appellate court held that the defendant had the requisite possession to come within the Section.

(3.) S.4A(1)(a) reads: