GOVINDA PILLAI RAMDAS versus LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA AMMUKUTTY AMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 17-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVINDA PILLAI RAMDAS 
A 
v. 
LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA AMMUKUTTY AMMA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 
[R.M. SAHA! AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1964: 
Section 4(A)-Deemed tenant-Mortgagee or lessee in possession of 
land for a continuous period of fifty years before commencement of Amend-
C 
ment Act, 196<}-Deemed to be tenant-Land in mortgage comprising of a 
house site in the heart of city, and not an agricultrua/ /and-Provisions of the 
Section-Applicability of 
The appellant-Plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the 
daughter of the mortgagor of the suit property. He filed a suit for redemp- D 
lion of the mortgage. The assignee of the mortgagee's right pleaded, that 
by virtue of Section 4-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, he should 
be deemed to a tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure. The trial court upheld 
his plea, and held that he has been holding the land comprised in the 
mortgage for a continnous period of not less than 50 years immediately E 
preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) 
Act, 1969 as contemplated by Section 4-A, and dismissed the suit. The 
Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's view and dismissed the appeal 
of the appellant-Plaintiff. Thereupon the appellant-Plaintiff preferred the 
second appeal which too was dismis.ed. 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant-Plaintiff, 
it was contended that the land in question was not an agricultural land 
F 
but a house site (with a building thereon) situated in the heart of the city 
and hence Kerala Land Reforms Act had no application to the instant 
case; that the expression 'land' occurring in the Act as also in Section 4-A G 
should be understood having regard to the object underlying the Act and 
the purpose for which it was enacted, and that since it was a measure of 
agrarian reform the Act should be understood as confined to agricultural 
land only. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
699 
H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: l.l. Admittedly, the expression 'land' in Section 4-A of the 
B 
c 
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, as it stood at the relevant time is not 
defined in the Act. Several provisions in the Act, purport to apply to both 
agricultural as well as non-agricultural lands. The Kerala Land Reforms 
(Amendment) Act, 1969, which introduced several far reaching provisions 
including the substituted Section 4-A into the Act had Hot been placed in 
the Ninth Schedule earlier. But, once the Amendment Act of 1969 was 
placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Twenty Ninth Amendment Act (the 
principal Act was already placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution 
Seventeenth (Amendment Act), its validity could not be challenged on the 
ground that any of its provisions is inconsistent with or takes awJy or 
abridges any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. 
(706 G-H; 707 A-CJ 0 
1.2. It is true, that normally the Land Reforms Act are confined to 
agricultural lands only but on that supposition the plain sweep and ambit 
of the Act cannot be cut down or abridged. May be that, having regard to 
D the conditions obtaining in the State the Legislature of that State thought 
it advisable not to make a distinction between agricultural and non-
agricultural lands in certain respects. (707-H; 708-AJ 
E 
Parameshwaran Pillai v. Narayanan Nair, 1979 K.L.T. 341, approved. 
Kunjukutty Saheb v. State of Kera/a, [1972) 2 S.C.C. 364 and 
Malankara Rubber and Produce Company v. State of Kera/a, [19721 2 S.C.C. 
492, relied on. 
Shankaran Nambisam v. Sarvottam Rao, (1972] K.L.T. 891, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3862. of 
~984. 
From the Judgment dated 27.5.1982 of the Kerala High Court in S.A. 
G No.1002 of 1977. 
G.V. Iyer and P.K. Pillai for the Appellant. 
N. Sudhakaran for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GOVINDA RAMDAS v. LJ\KSHMIKUTrY [.JEEV AN REDDY, J.] 
701 
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed A 
against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court 
dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by him. 
The suit property was mortgaged by one Raman Pillai in favour of 
Madhav Pillai. Plaintiff purchased the equity or redemption from the 
<laughter of Raman Pillai. First defendant in the suit is the assignee of the B 
mortgagee's right whereas defendants 2 to 5 are his children. The plaintiff 
filed the suit for red

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