K. SANKARAN NAIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus DEVAKI AMME MALATHY AMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 25-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

K. SANKARAN NAIJ;l (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
DEVAKI AMME MALATHY AMMA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 
(N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1963: Section 6-C (As inserted by Kera/a 
Land Refonns (Amendment) Act, 1979) and Section 74. 
A 
B 
Tenancy law-Deemed tenancy-Claim fo~Rejection in tenancy C 
proceedings by Cowts and Supreme Cowt-Judgments consequently becom~ 
ing final-Amendment of Land Ref onns Act by Kera/a Legislature-/11se1tion 
of Section 6-C-Confennent of status of deemed tenant under-Fresh claim . 
for deemed tenancy-Held b01red by ~es judicata. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 11. 
Res judicat~Tenancy proceedings--Oecision rendered by competent 
Courts regarding tenancy statu~Judgments acquiring final-Amendment of 
Act-Confennent of status of deemed tenant-Fresh claim for deemed tenan-
cy based on amended Act held baJTed by res judicata. 
Legislature-Power to ovemle judicial decision-Essential condition 
for-Unless legislature renwves the substratum off oundation of the judgment, 
it would remain operative and binding. 
D 
E 
The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit claiming their 5/6th share F 
in- the plaint schedule properties as well as for past and future mesne . 
profits. The appellant (defendant No. 2) contested the suit contending that 
he was a tenant. His case was that by a registered deed dated 10th January, 
1969 the suit property was leased out to him by his mother-in-law. The 
tenancy. Tribunal held that he was not a tenant and the lease deed in his G 
• 
favour was hit by section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 which 
totally barred creation of leases after 1.4.1964. The Tribunal's decision was 
confirmed by the High Court on 31st March 1978. As the Special Leave 
Petition filed by appellant was ·also dismissed by this Court on 28th 
August, 1978 the question of alleged tenancy of the appellant got concluded 
against the appellant. 
H 
839 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
C_onsequently the respondents obtained possession from the appel-
B 
lant and filed execution petition for mesne profits on 5th July, 1979. During 
the pendency of these execution proceedings Kerala Land Rreforms 
(Amendment) Act, 1979 came into force on 7th July, 1979. By the said 
amendment Act Section· 6-C was inserted in the 1963 Act under which 
4 
• 
certain lessees were conferred the status of deemed tenants. The appellant's 
application to get a fresh reference to the Land Tribunal for deciding his 
deemed tenancy status under section 6C was rejected by the Executing 
Court vide its order dated 29th January 1980 on the ground that it was 
barred by principle of res judicata. On revision the High Court by its order 
dated 7th April, 1980 held that (i) principle of res judicata was not ap-
C plicable because of the comming i~to force of a new provision viz. section 
· 6C of the Act; (ii) the lease deed in favour of the appellant was inoperative 
as the executant was a life estate holder and had no authority to create such 
a lease under the provisions of the Act. 
In appeal to this Court on the question whether the appellant was 
D entitled to again claim the benefit of deemed tenancy as per section 6C of 
the Act. 
E 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 6C of Kerala Land Reforms Act could not be 
pressed into service by the original appellant for displacing the binding 
judgments rendered by the Tribunal, the High Court and this Court in the 
earlier tenancy proceedings wherein appellants claim for tenancy of the suit 
land came to be repelled and those judgments have become final and 
binding and were not in any way legally displaced by any competent piece of 
legislation by the Kerala Legislature. Those judgments remained fully 
operative against the appellant and consequently on the principle of res 
judicata he could not once again re-agitate the question about his tenancy. 
(850-F-G] 
2. There is no question of lack of jurisdiction with the competent 
G court which earlier decided the plea of tenancy under the very Act as raised 
by the appellant. Not only the decision was ren4ered on merits byy com-
Alllii 
petent court but it was confirmed by this Court. The cause of action 
remained the same, namely status of tenancy of the appellant qua the land 
and against the plaintifs: In support of the same cause of action the appel-
lant wanted to take advantage of section 6C which fortunately for him was 
H having no retrospective effec

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