LexCHEERANTHOODIKA AHMED KUTTY AND ANR. versus PARAMBUR MARIAKUTTY UMMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
]
\
CHEERANTHOODIKA AH\1ED KUTIY AND ANR.
A
v.
PARAMBUR MARIAKUTIY l.:MMA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 8, 2CGO
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]
B
Land Ref onns :
Kerala Land Refonns Act, 1963 : Section 72-K-Party possessing land
in excess of the ceiling limit-Directed by Taluk Land Board to surrender C
excess lan~A certain part of land tenanted tu wmeone--{,'ertificate of
Purchase issued by the Land Tribunal in that re~pect-Tenant gifted the said
pan of land to a mosque--Office-bearers of the mosque sought de-linking of
the gifted part of land from the said excess land-Taluk Land Board refused
to delink the said part of land--ln revision, High Court refused to inter-
fere-On appeal, Held : High Court erred in upholding the order of Taluk D
Board-Certificate of Purchase was conclusive proof regarding assignment to
tenant of right, title ar.d interest of landownei-No evidence against con-
clusiveness of the certificate to be adduced except on the plea of fraud or
co//usiun---No such plea raised in the instant case-Taluk Land Board and
the High Court erroneously put burden of proof on the appellant tu substan-
E
tiate the validity and correctnel'S of the certificates.
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 4-<._'1mclusive Pruuj-f'rovisiun fur treat-
numt of a particular fact to be conclusive proof in an enactment--No evidence
allowed to be given for the purpose of dilproving it except on the allegation
of fraud or collusion.
F
M, the deceased husband of Respondent No. l (brought on record
subsequently after the death of her husband) was found to be holding
877.500 acres of land by the Taluk Board. The said land was determined
to be beyond the ceiling limit, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963,
by 788.72 acres. When M was directed to surrender the said excess land, G
the appellants (office bearers of a mosque) claimed that 6.82.500 acres of
land had been l~ased out by M, much before the said Act. A Certificate of
Purchase, under Section 72-K of the Act, was also issued by the Land
Tribunal in this regard. Thereafter, it was claimed, that the said land was
gifted to the mosque. The appellants, therefore, contended that the said H
725
726
SllPREMF CO CRT RhPORTS
(2000) 1 S.C.R.
A area should be de-linked from M's 2ccount. The Taluk Board, ignoring the
Certificate of Purchase, determined the excess land including the land
claimed by the appellants. In revision, undtr Section 105 of the Act, High
Court refused to interfere with the aforesaid finding of the Taluk Board
on the ground that no material was produced to show existence of a
B tenancy prior to 196..t.
The appellant contended that the High Court has failed to take into
account the legal implications of Section 72-K of the Act which rendered
a Certificate of Purchast as conclusive proof of the assignment to the
tenant of the right, title and interest uf the landowner and the ioter-
C mediaries, if any, over the holding gr portion thereon to which the assign-
ment relates.
Allowing the appl!als, this Court
HELD : 1.1. When Section 72-K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,
D 1963 enjoined that any evidence would be treated as conclusive proof of
certain factual position or legal hypothesis the law would forbid other
evidence to be adduced for the purpose of contrndicting or varying the
aforesaid conclusiveness. Of course, the interdict that the court shall not
allow evidence to be adduced for the purpose of disproving conclusiveness,
will not prevent a party who alleg~s fraud or collusion from establishing
E that the document is vitiated by ~.uch factors. Except regarding the said
limited sphert the conclusiv~ness of the document would remah1 beyond
the 1·cacl1 of cuntruvertibillty. [ 729-R-OJ
Chettiam Veeu/ Ammad and Another v. Taluk Land Board & Others,
F AIR (1979) SC 1573, relied on.
Halsbury's Laws of England Para 28, Vol. 17, IVth Edn., referred to.
1.2. In the present case no party has averred that the Certificates of
Purchase were collusively obtained. In fact, i:vi:n the authorbed officer who
G was to make a report under Section 105-A of the Act mentioned in the report
that the said areas were covered by certificates of purchase referred to above.
It is pertinent to point out that the authorised ofticer did not even suggest
that the certificate were procured collusively. Even the Taluk Land Board
did not hold that the Certificates of Purchase were the products of any fraud
or collusion. It was unnecessary foExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.