KALLYANI PILLAI Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question arising in this CRP. is whether the property in the possession of the 1st respondent who is a lessee of a mortgagee has become vested in the Government under S.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), so much so that the revision petitioners who are the mortgagees have become disentitled to the rent in respect of such property. The revision petitioner's family obtained mortgage rights in the property under a document of 1080 M. E. and by subsequent partition in the family these rights became vested in the petitioners. The land was leased out to the first respondent's father by the mortgagee and after the father's death the first respondent came into possession of the land. There is no evidence as to the date on which the lease was granted in favour of the father.

(2.) The petitioners filed an application before the Munsif - Land Tribunal, Alleppey, under S.26 of the Act for recovery of arrears of rent from the lessee for the period from 1968 to 1971. The application was allowed, but it was in substance rejected on appeal by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alleppey, by its order dated 23rd July 1975. The Appellate Authority found that the mortgage was more than 50 years old and that the lessee had been in continuous possession of the property. That being the position, it was held that the lessee was a deemed tenant and the land of which such tenancy subsisted had become vested in the Government under S.72 of the Act. Accordingly it was held that the revision petitioners were not entitled to recover rent for the period subsequent to 1-1-1970 and the order of the Tribunal was modified to that extent. The appeal was thus allowed in part. It is that order which is challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) If S.72 of the Act applies to the land in question, all right, title and interest of the petitioners in such land vested in the Government on the appointed day. The petitioners, however, contended that, by virtue of the exemption contained in S.3(1)(v), S.72 has no application. The relevant portions of S.3 are as follows: