LexEAPEN THOMAS versus SYED MOHAMMED KUNJU MOHAMMED KUNJU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-~-
EAPEN THOMAS
v.
SYED MOHAMMED KUNJU MOHAMMED KUNJU
MARCH 13, 1992
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. JA YACHANDRA
REDDY, JJ.]
Kera/a Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970-Section 2()-{)ebt Relief
Petition under-Requirement for maintainability-Object of legislation-Inter-
pretation beneficial to indebted peasentry to be accepted-Cost of improve-
ments and mesne profits whether payable.
In execution of a money decree, a court-sale took place. Three pieces
of agricultural land of the judgment-debtor-respondent were put to auc-
tion. The decree-holder-appellant purchased the same.
Item Nos.1 and 2 of the auctioned property remained in possession
of the respondent, but item no. 3 went into the possession of the appellant.
The respondent approached the executing court filing a petition u/s.
20 of the Kerala Agriculturists Act, 1970, for retrieval of the entire proper-
ty on the basis that he had continued to be in possession of a part of it.
The appellant contested the Debt Relief Petition contending that as
the respondent was not in possession of the entire property, Section 20 of
the Act was inapplicable and that in case it was then before possession of
property, item no. 3 could be asked to be given, cost of improvements had
to be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 20.
All the courts below decided against the appellant.
This appeal by special leave was confined to a claim to property Item
No. 3 of the Debt Relief Petition.
Dismissing the appeal of the decree-holder, this Court,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
HELD : 1.01. The Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act is a local
legislation and had come to give some succour to the indebted agricul-
turists. The conditions which led to the passing of such legislation H
307
308
'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[1992] 2 S.C.R.
A
presumably were well known to the Kerala State Legislature and the pulse
of it was felt by the High Court of Kerala in its interpretive role~ [3090)
B
c
D
E
1.02. The sale concei"ed of under Section 20 is one and indivisible
and when it is required to be set aside only a portion of the property sold
need be in possession of the judgment-debtor to make him eligible to
maintain the Debt Relief Petition. [309E]
1.03. An interpretation, beneficial as it is to the indebted peasentry
is approved. The courts below as well as the High Court let the respondent
maintain his Debt Relief Petition. Such a course is concurred with. Sequal-
ly property item no. 3 has also to be retrieved from the hands of the
appellant. [309F]
1.04. In the interests of justice, neither is the appellant held entitled
r
to any cost of improvements nor would he be liable for payment of any
mesne profits for the preceding three years. [310A-B]
Syed Mohammed Beevi Amma v. Mathai Devasia, 1960 KLT 163;
Ramasuppa Iyer v. Daveed Christudas, 1963 KLT 886, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2578 of
1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9th June, 1980 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernaculam in C.R.P. No. 3168 of 19i8.
S. Padmanabhan and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
F
K.M.K. Nair for the Respondent.
G
The Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave is confined to a claim to property Item
No. 3 of the Debt Relief Petition, which succeeded in the courts below.
In execution of a money decree a court-sale took place in which three
pieces of agricultural land of the judgment-debtor, respondent herein, was·
put to auction and purchased by the decree-holder, the appellant herein.
On the facts found by the courts below item Nos. 1 and 2 ofihe auctioned
property remained in possession .of the respondent, but item No. 3 went
H into the possession of the appellant. The respondent taking the aid of
EAPEN THOMAS v. MOHD. KUNJU
309
Section 20 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970, approached A
the executing court for retrieval of the entire property on the basis that he
had continued to be in possession of atleast a part of it, i.e., two survey
numbers as itemized. The Debt Relief Petition was contested by the
appellant herein on the ground that since the judgment-debtor-respondent
was not. in possession of the entire property, Section 20 of the aforesaid
Act was inapplicable and in case it was then before possession of property
item No. 3 could be asked to be given cost of improvements had to be paid
under sub-section (5) of Section 20, which the appellant assessed at Rs.
2,000. All the courExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.