K. BHAGIRATHI G. SHENOY AND ORS. versus K.P. BALLAKURAYA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 06-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. BHAGIRA THI G. SHENOY AND ORS. 
v. 
K.P. BALLAKURA YA AND ANR. 
APRIL 6, 1999 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 : Ss. 72 Band 3(i)(ii)-Lease deed-
C Lease of residential building with land appurtenant thereto-No right to 
enjoy the land independent of building created-Lessee not allowed to make 
any improvement on the /and-Lessee, as cultivating tenant, claiming right, 
title and interest of the landowner-Entitlement <ff-Held, the lease was of 
building with land appurtenant thereto-Thus, exempted from the purview of 
D the· Act-Lessee cannot claim any right under the Act. 
E 
F 
Words & Phrases: 
"appurtenant".,-Meaning'-Of in the context of sec.3(i)(ii) of Kera/a 
Land Reforms Act, 1963. 
' 
Maxim ''noscittur a sociis ''-Applicability of 
The predecessor-in-interest of appellants 'executed a lease deed in 
favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the responden~s. The property leased 
put comprised of a residential building along with certain land adjoining the 
building with trees. However, another building situated within the boundaries 
of the said land was retained by the lessor. The said lease deed stipulated that 
the less.Ce will have no right to make any improvements on the land and was 
only permitted to take the usufructs of the trees standing on the land. In the 
meantime, the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 came into force. Respondent 
claiming to be cultivating tenant of the leased land, filed an application under 
G sec. 72B of Act for assigning on him the right, title and interest oflandowner, 
The said application was allowed by the Land Tribunal and further confirmed 
by Appellate Authority. On revision High Court concurred with the findings 
of the courts below. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of Appellant-Lessor it was contended that the lease was of 
H a building with the land appurtenant thereto and hence it does not fall within 
438 
K. BHAGIRATHI G. SHENOY v. K.P. BALLAKURA YA 
439 
the purview of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The lease was of building with the landed area meant as 
appurtenant thereto. Consequently, the said lease is exempted from Chapter 
A 
II of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and respondent cannot claim any B 
right under Sec. 72B of the Act. (446-B] 
1.2. A perusal of the lease deed· indicates that there was no idea for the 
lessor to create a right to enjoy the land independent of the building but only 
to take usufruct of the trees standing thereon while residing in the building. 
The area of the land alone cannot be a determinative factor. It was common C 
practice in olden days for residential buildings to have sprawling areas as 
adjuncts to such buildings. That practice could well have been followed by 
the parties in the lease deed in the instant case. [445-G-H; 446-A) 
1.3. The fact that another building situated within the boundaries has 
been ~etained by the lessor is a pointer indicating that the land was only to D 
be used as adjunct to the residential building. Over and above all those, the 
interdict against making any improvement on the land is a stirring feature 
which is in conflict with the idea of land becoming the dominant factor of the 
lease. No lease of land can possibly be conceived without the lessee being 
given freedom to use the land to generate· profit there from. Here the lease E 
imposed a complete ban on the lessee to use the land for such purposes. All 
that he is permitted thereon is to take usufructs of the trees already standing 
on the land. (445-E-G] 
Maharaj Singh v. State of UP., (1977) 1 SCC 155; .Mis Larsen and 
Toubro Ltd v. Trustees of Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan, p 
[1988] 4 SCC 260 and Suryakumar Govindjee v. Krishnammal and Ors., 
[1990) 4 sec 343, relied on, 
''The Law Lax icon of British India'', referred to. 
2. It is not a sound principle in interpretation of statutes to lay emphasis G 
on one word disjuncted from its preceding and succeeding words. A word in 
a statutory provision is to be read in collocation with its companion words. 
The pristine principle based on the maxim "noscittur a sociis" (meaning of 
a word should be known from its accompanying or associating words) has 
much relevance in understanding the import of words in a statutory provision. 
(441-E-F) H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9156 of 
1996. 
. 
·fr,om the Judgment and Order dated 18

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