LAWS(KER)-2007-3-478

S VILASINI AMMA Vs. K KESAVA PILLAI

Decided On March 22, 2007
S.VILASINI AMMA Appellant
V/S
K.KESAVA PILLAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority, Alappuzha in A.A 153 of 1997. The first appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The connection between the Civil Revision Petitioner and the second respondent is on account of the fact that the revision petitioner through her predecessor in interest namely Sri.Madhavan Pillai, claim tenancy right with respect of 90.5 cents of land by virtue of an oral lease by Sri.Kesavan Pillai in favour of Madhavan Pillai. Therefore, the revision petitioner contends that as per the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act, she is entitled to fixity of tenure over the property and therefore any sale or transfer of property by some other persons will not affect her tenancy right or title over the property. On the other hand, the second respondent in the revision petition contends that Sri.Kesava Pillai had borrowed amounts from one Abdul Razaq for which a suit was filed by the said Razaq in the year 1976 and in pursuance of the execution of the decree 51 cents of property sold in court auction was purchased by Razaq himself and later he had transferred it to the second respondent in the revision petition and thereby he had title and possession over the property.

(2.) Before the Land Tribunal, an order was passed in favour of the revision petitioner and in appeal it was reversed by the appellate authority. In the suit, the Civil court found that the plaintiff therein has valid right and possession over the property and therefore granted decree in favour of the plaintiff who is the second respondent in the C.R.P. before this court.

(3.) Now the entire matter depends upon the acceptability of the tenancy right set up by the revision petitioner in this case. The Land Tribunal while disposing of the matter held that there was a settlement deed executed by Sri.Madhavan Pillai and others in their family and this property was a subject matter and it is of the year 1959 and further the authorised officer inspected the property and came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner's family is in possession of the property from 1940 onwards and it also relied upon some basic tax receipts and ordered issuance of certificate of purchase in favour of the revision petitioner. In appeal the appellate authority found that Sri.Madhavan Pillai had raised a very specific contention in O.S.461/87 to the effect that he came in to possession of the property by virtue of a lease given by Sri.Kesavan Pillai in his favour in 1982 by virtue of an unregistered lease deed and thereby he is in possession of the property and on his death it had devolved upon the present revision petitioner. So, Sri.Madhavan Pillai did not have a case that he was the tenant of the property from 1940 onwards. When it is so a person claiming under Sri.Madhavan Pillai cannot have a better claim. When Sri.Madhavan Pillai asserts that lease is the year 1982, the revision petitioner cannot canvas for the position that the lease was in the year 1940. Even she cannot raise such a plea I will consider the same as well. The Magnacarta of the case of the revision petitioner is Ext.A1. The Land Tribunal also relied on Ext.A1 settlement deed to show that Sri.Madhavan Pillai was in possession of the property at that point of time. A perusal of the schedule to the document would convincingly establish that these properties had never been the subject matter of the said settlement deed. So, Ext.A1 could not in any way lend support to the case of the revision petitioner. Then the next point argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act an authorised officer's report is entitled to wait and unless there is something compelling to discard it, the courts are bound to give evidentiary value to the said report. There cannot be any dispute about that proposal. But at the same time, the report submitted by the authorised officer should have credence and should be based on some materials. How can a Revenue Inspector on a visit of the property come to the conclusion that a person is in possession of the property from 1940. There is absolutely no scrap of paper produced by the revision petitioner or Sri.Madhavan Pillai to show they were in possession of the property at any point of time prior to the crucial date of 1.1.1970. On the other hand, Sri.Madhavan Pillai himself would submit a case before the civil court contenting that he is in possession of the property only by virtue of lease deed of year 1982. So the documentary evidence is not at all convincing and the report of the revenue inspector would not stand scrutiny of law. Therefore, the appellate authority was right in discarding the Revenue Inspectors report.