(M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.)
A. Samikkutty and Another _______________________ Appellant(s);
v.
P.V. Chandran and Another ______________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 7775 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16069/2020), decided on October 20, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No. 160 of 2015 by which the High Court, while allowing the said appeal, has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit and has consequently decreed the suit filed by the respondents herein-original plaintiffs for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the suit property, the original defendants have preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal, in a nut shell, are as under:—
There was already a dispute earlier between the predecessor of the original plaintiff and the appellants herein-original defendants before the Tenancy Court. The Tenancy Court, after holding necessary enquiry, held that the defendants are the tenants of the land to the extent of 11.88 acres of land. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though the defendants claimed the tenancy rights with respect to the land ad-measuring 10 acres, on enquiry, the Tenancy Authority declared the defendants as tenant to the extent of 11.88 acres of land.
4. From the material on record, it appears that subsequently the plaintiff approached the authority for modification of the order passed by the Tenancy Authority declaring the defendants as tenants to the extent of 11.88 acres and prayed that they be declared the tenant bearing of the land to the extent of 10 acres of land. The said prayer came to be rejected by the Authority, against which an appeal has been preferred which also came to be dismissed.
5. Thereafter, the purchase certificate came to be issued in favour of the defendants with respect to the land to the extent of 11.88 acres of land. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the order declaring the defendants as tenant of the land ad-measuring 11.88 acres and the purchase certificate in favour of the defendants attained finality.
6. That thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the suit initially for declaration and possession declaring the purchase certificate as null and void alleging that the same was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. However, subsequently the suit was amended and the allegations of fraud in obtaining the sale certificate and the prayer for declaration was withdrawn and/or given up and the same was amended praying for the mandatory injunction only. That thereafter, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit by observing that the defendants are in possession of the suit property since last more than 3 decades. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit has been reversed by the High Court relying upon the observations made by the Taluk Land Board with respect to the excess land in which some observations were made that the defendants were not the tenants. Consequently, the High Court has set aside the decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and consequently decreed the suit for mandatory injunction and directed the defendants to handover the possession of the property in question.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the facts narrated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a very serious error in upsetting the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and quashing and set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit and consequently decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction.
8. Once the proceedings before the Tenancy Authorities declaring the defendants as tenants and the issuance of the purchase certificate with respect to the suit land in question attained finality thereafter the defendants can be said to be in the legal possession as tenants. Under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chettian Veetil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board, (1980) 1 SCC 499 (para 27) and the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty v. Parambur Mariakutty Umma, (2000) 2 SCC 417 (para 8), the purchase certificate issued by the Tenancy Authority is a conclusive proof. In the case of Chettian Veetil Ammad (supra), it is further observed and held by this Court that the scope of the enquiry in the Taluk Land Board is relating to the surplus land with which the Land Tribunal is not concerned and the certificate of purchase has its own “conclusive” evidentiary value to the extent provided in Section 72-K(2) in the proceedings by the Taluk Land Board.
9. In that view of the matter and applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the suit was pressed only for the mandatory injunction. No declaration was sought. Once it was found that the defendants were declared to be the tenants and the purchase certificates were issued in their favour and they were found to be in possession since last more than 3 decades (as per the findings recorded by the learned trial Court) the High Court has committed a very serious error in decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court decreeing the suit is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit is hereby restored. Consequently, the original suit filed by the original-plaintiff stands dismissed.
11. The present Appeal stands allowed. No costs.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 16069/2020
A. Samikkutty & Anr.….Petitioner(s)
v.
P.V. Chandran & Anr.….Respondent(s)
IA No. 37409/2022 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 136521/2020 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 20-10-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
12. Leave granted.
13. The present Appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order.
14. Pending applications stand disposed of.
———
