AMINA BEEVI versus THACHI & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 27-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 1084 
AMINA BEEVI 
v. 
THACHI & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15221 of 2007 Etc.) 
OCTOBER 27, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1963: 
c 
s.51, proviso - Surrender by tenant of his interests in the 
leasehold land to landlord - HELD: Being in contravention 
of s. 51, was void. 
ss. 13-A and 125 - Restoration of possession of tenants 
dispossessed after 1.4.1964 - Jurisdiction of civil court -
D Held: Suit for recovery of possession by a tenant is neither 
barred expressly nor impliedly bys. 13-A - Further, s.125 
makes it clear that in any suit regarding rights of a tenant the 
issues of rights of tenant and whether a person is tenant will 
have to be referred to the civil court. 
E 
'MS', the owner of the suit property (agricultural 
lands) leased out the same to 'K' in the year 1945-46. 'MS' 
died on 24.7.1968. His legal heirs, namely, his wife, son 
and daughter, executed sale deeds, Ext. A-1 and Ext. A-
F 2 in respect of a part of the suit land. On 29. 7 .1968, 'K' 
executed a leasehold assignment deed, Ext. A-3, in 
favour of the son of 'MS'. The purchasers of the suit 
property under Ext. A-1 and A-2 obtained loans from State 
Bank of Travancore and in turn mortgaged to the Bank 
G the properties under Exts. A-1 and A-2. After the death of 
'K', his legal heirs filed a civil suit in the year 1980 against 
the landlords, the purchasers and the Bank. The trial court 
decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs had 
leasehold rights over the suit property and were entitled 
H 
1084 
AMINA BEEVI v. THACH I & ORS. 
1085 
to recover possession thereof. The appeals filed by the 
A 
Bank and the purchasers were dismissed and so also 
their second appeals. 
In the instant petitions for special leave to appeal, the 
questions for consideration before the Court were: (1) 
whether the High Court was right in holding that Ext.A3, 
though styled as assignment of leasehold right, was in 
fact a surrender of the leasehold right by the lessee in 
favour of landlord and, therefore, hit bys. 51 of the Kerala 
Land Reforms Act, 1963 which prohibited surrender of C 
interest of a tenant except in favour of the Government; 
and (2) whether the suit filed by the tenants for 
declaration of their tenancy rights in respect of the suit 
land and for recovery of possession thereof was 
expressly or impliedly barred by s.13A of the Act. 
B 
D 
Dismissing the SLPs, the Court 
HELD: 1. In view of the proviso to s.51 of the Kerala 
Land Reforms Act, 1963, any surrender by the tenant of 
his interest to any person other than the Government is 
prohibited. Ext.A3, being a surrender by the tenant of his 
interest in favour of a person other than the Government, 
was in contravention of s.51 and was void. This Court is, 
therefore, not inclined to disturb the finding of the High 
Court that Ext.A3 though styled as a leasehold 
assignment deed was in fact a surrender of the interest 
of the tenant and was prohibited by s.51 of the Act. [para 
6] [1091-G-H; 1092-A] 
E 
F 
2.1 Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
provides that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits 
G 
of a civil nature excepting suits which are either 
expressly or impliedly barred. A plain reading of sub-s. 
(1) of s.13A of the Act would show that a person who has 
been dispossessed of his land in his occupation on or 
H 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A after 1st April, 1964 and such person would have been a 
tenant under the Act as amended by the Kerala Land 
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, at the time of such 
dispossession, would be entitled subject to the 
provisions of the Section to restoration of the possession 
B of the land. None of the sub-sections of s.13A expressly 
state that a suit by a tenant for recovery of possession 
of the land which was under his occupation was barred. 
Therefore, a suit for recovery of possession by a tenant 
is not "expressly" barred. It cannot also be held that such 
c a suit was "impliedly" barred by s.13A of the Act because 
of what is provided in s.125 of the Act. [para 7, 9 and 10] 
[1092-C; 1095-C-D; 1095-F] 
2.2 The provisions of s.125 make it amply clear that 
in any suit regarding rights of a tenant, the rights of the 
D tenant including a question whether a person is a tenant 
will have to be referred by the Civil Court to the Land 
Tribunal and after the Land Tribunal decides the question, 
the Civil Court will decide the sui

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.