KUCHIYAN GOVINDA SWAMI versus KALLIANI AMMA LEKSHMI AMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 31-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
J 
G 
H 
13& 
KUCHIYAN GOVINDA SW AMI 
v. 
KALLIANI AMMA LEKSHMI AMMA AND ORS. 
March 31, 1966 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, R. S. BACHAWAT AND 
J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J 
Ke•ala Land Reform' Act, 1963 (Ker. 1of1964), ss. 2(28), 2(26) 
-"Kuzhikanam" and "Kudiyiruppu'-', meaning. 
By a deed styled 'otti Kuzhikanam deed', the predecessor of the 
respondent sold a building standing on a property to the predecessor 
of the appellant and also transferred to him the right to possess and 
enjoy the property for 12 years in Kuzhikanam right with liberty 
to plant coconut trees thereon. The deed expressly reserved the right 
for the respondent to enjoy the fruit bearing trees then standing on 
the properties. and provided that after expiry of 12 y~ar~ the appel-
lant would on demand demolish and take away the bmldmg and sur-
render possession of the land on receipt of a certain amount and he 
agreed compensation for the coconut trees planted by him. The res-
pondent instituted a suit for redemption of the property, which was 
decreed. On appeals, the decree was affirmed by the District Court 
and High Court. In appeal to this Court the appellant claimed fixity 
of tenure and protection from eviction on the ground thd he was (i) 
a Kuzhikanamdar under s. 2(57)(d) and s. 2(28), or alternatively, 
(ii) the holder of a kudiyiruppu under s. 2(57) (hY and s. 2(26) of 
the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 
HELD: (i) The deed did not grant Kuzhikanam rights to the 
appellant. 
"Kuzhikanam" as defined in s. 2(28) means a transfer (1) of gar-
den lands or of other lands or of both, (2) with the fruit bearing trees, 
if any standing thereon at the time of the transfer, (3) for the enjoy-
ment of those trees and (4) for the purpose of planting such fruit bear-
ing trees thereon. It does not include a u~ufructuary mortgage as de-
fined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but it was not the case of 
the respondent that the deed created such a usufructuary mortgage. 
(137 E-FJ 
A tranffi'cr of land without the fruit bearing trees then standing 
on it and not carrying Vv·ith it the right to enjoy those trees was not a 
kuzhikanam as defined ins. 2(28). The force of the words "if any" in 
the definition of "kuzhikanam" in s. 2(28) is that if there are any 
fruit bearing trees on the land at the time of the transfer, the trees 
also must be transferred for their enjoyment by the transferee. 
[137 H-138 BJ 
. 
(ii) The appellant was not the holder of Kudiyiruppu within th~ 
meaning of s. 2(26) cl the Act. 
There was no material on the record to show that the building 
on the land was a residential building. Moreover, it did not appear 
that the land was necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the 
building. [138 DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 225 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
Ju1y 25. 1961 of the Kerala High Court in S.A No. 852 Of 1957. 
L/S5SCI-Jl 
13G 
~l'1'RElt.E COLRT RFPOR1'H 
A. G. Pudi.uery, for the appellant. 
M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondents. 
[1966] 8!'.>P. ~.c n. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
Bachawat, J. In 1921, the plantiff executed in favour of the de-
B 
fendant an otti kuzhikanam deed in respect of the suit property. 
By this deed, the plaintiff sold to the defendant the building stand-
ing on the property for 350 fanams and also transferred to him for 
350 fanams the right to possess and enjoy the property for 12 years 
in kuzhikanam right with liberty to plant coconut trees thereon, 
expressly reserving for the plaintiff the right to enjoy the fruit-
bearing trees then standing on the property. The deed provided 
C 
that after the expiry of 12 years the defendant would on demand 
demolish and take away the building and surrender possession of 
the land on receipt of 350 fanams and the agreed compensation for 
the coconut trees planted by him. The plaintiff instituted a suit for 
redemption of the property. During the pendency of the litigation, 
the plaintiff and the defendant died, and their legal representatives 
were substituted in their place. On May 31, 1951, the Principal 
D 
District Munsif. Quilon decreed the suit. On appeal. the District 
Court of Quilon aflirmed this decree. The present appellant, who 
is one of the legal representatives of the original defendant, filed 
a second appeal in 1 he High Court of Kerala. During the pendency 
of this appeal, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act. 1960 (Act IV 
of 1961 I came into
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.