LexMADHAVI AMMA & ORS. versus S. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 307 MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736 of 2005) MARCH 22,. 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ,] A B Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - ss. 80, BOB, 79A, 102 and 125 - Eviction proceedings under the 1965 Act - C Reference u/s.125(3) of the 1963 Act, by Rent Control Authority calling for decision as to status of appellant(s) as a tenant or Kudikidappukaran - On Reference, Land Tribunal returned . a finding that appel/ant(s) was not a Kudikidappukaran but was only a tenant occupying a building o belonging to the respondent and not a hut or homestead - Held: The only scope to challenge the conclusion of the Land Tribunal was by way of an appeal under the provisions of 1965 Act by virtue of the specific stipulations contained in s. 125(6) of the 1963 Act - In order for a person to claim the status of E Kudikidappukaran, he has to ensure that the status claimed is in the first instance accepted by the local authority in appropriate proceedings uls.BO of the 1963 Act and more importantly in proof for such acceptance his name is entered as Kudikidappukaran in the register prepared and maintained F for that purpose by the local authority - Approach made by the appellant(s) by invoking s.BOB of the 1963 Act in order to assert his right as Kudikidappukaran even without getting his status ascertained in appropriate proceedings u/s. BO of the 1963 Act was wholly invalid and rightly rejected by the original authority - Appellate Authority failed to understand the scope, G power and jurisdiction of Appellate power u/s.102 of the 1963 Act as against the order passed uls. BOB of the 1963 Act - Order of Appellate Authority was, wholly without any jurisdiction 307 H 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A and rightly set aside by the High Court - Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 - s.125 - Status of Kudikidappukaran - Determination - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil 8 Court/Rent Control Court - Held: Such question can be exclusively decided only by the Land Tribunal - However, after such decision is rendered pursuant to a reference made to it and the ultimate decision of the Civil Court/Rent Control Court is taken up by way of appeal, the Appellate Court! appellate authority of a Civil Court or Rent Control Court while C examining the merits of the decision of the concerned Civil Court or the original authority on the question of eviction can also examine the correctness of the decision rendered by the Land Tribunal as regards the status as a Kudikidappukaran. D The respondents landlord filed RCP No. 140/85 for eviction of the tenant, sub-tenant and other occupants under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. When that eviction petition was pending, one of the tenants, who was predecessor of the appellant (s) herein, E filed a petition under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 claiming rights as a Kudikidappukaran. The Rent Controller referred the issue as to whether such a claim made by the tenant was admissible, to the Land Tribunal. The tenant also filed an F application under Section 80B of the 1963 Act for purchase of Kudikidappu under his occupation of the lands before the Land Tribunal. By orders dated 19.2.1991, the Land Tribunal returned a finding in the Reference made by the Rent Control Authority to the G effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant (s) did not possess any Kudikidappu rights. In the application filed under Section 80B of the Act also such a claim came to the rejected. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 125 (5) of the 1963 Act, the Rent Control proceedings in RCP 140/85 was H· MADKAVI AMMA & ORS. v. S. PRASANNAKUMARI 309 determined holding that the tenant's right as a A Kudikidappukaran was not maintainable and thereafter the eviction petition was also ordered on merits in favour of the respondent-landlord herein. On the side of the appellant (s), a separate appeal was B preferred in AA 37/91 as against the rejection of the application under section 808 of the 1963 Act which came to be allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 13.11.1995. As against the order of the Rent Control Authority in RCP No.140/85 dated 2.7.1991 on behalf of C the appellant(s), an appeal was also preferred in RCA No.133/1991 befor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.