KUNJAIYAPPAN Vs. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second defendant in OS 74 of 1976 of the Sub-Court, Trichur, is the appellant. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 instituted the suit for partition by metes and bounds of their 3/4th share in the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the first defendant are brothers The allegations in the plaint are that the properties were purchased in 1962 by the plaintiffs and first defendant, that they were in joint possession of the same, that the plaintiffs were away at Cannanore and Devakottai in connection with employment, that the first defendant appropriated the profits of the properties and that he attempted to bring into existence certain collusive documents with the help of the second defendant to defeat their rights. First defendant remained ex parte. Second defendant claims to be a lessee under the first defendant.

(2.) The case was referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal held that the lease set up by the second defendant is hit by S.74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and held that he is not a tenant. The Trial Court accepted the findings of the Tribunal and decreed the suit. Second defendant filed AS 188 of 1981 before the District Court, Trichur. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the preliminary judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court.

(3.) Admittedly Ext. A1 tenancy was created after the commencement of Kerala Land Reforms Act. In the written statement filed by the second defendant he has no case that he is entitled to the benefits under S.6C of the Land Reforms Act. Having not raised such a plea it is futile on his part to contend belatedly that he is entitled to the benefits under S.6C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. S.6C is an exception to S.74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. A person who claims benefits under S.6C of the Act has to establish all the integrants under that Section. S.6C reads: