LexMANCHERI PUTHUSSERI AHMED AND ORS. versus KUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANCHER! PUTHUSSERI AHMED AND ORS.
A
v.
KUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER
;.
...
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996
(N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.)
B
Tenancy and Land Laws :
Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1964: Section 4A(l)(a).
Usufrnctuary mortgage-Mortgagee-Deemed tenant-Mortgagor's suit c
for redemption of usufrnctuary mortgage decreed-In execution proceedings
mortgagor deposited mortgage amount and value of improvements on
14.3.1969 i.e. prior to l.1.197(}-S.4A(l)(a)-Conditions for applicability
of-Held: (1) He must be a mortgagee-in-possession of land on the date S.
4A came into force i.e. 1.1.1970 and (2) must ltave remained as such D
continuously for 50 years' period till 1.1.1970 i.e. at least from 31.12.1969 to
1.1.197o-Mortgagees not fulfilling these conditions not entitled to claim
benefit under S. 4A on basis of non-obstante clause therein-Or by virtue of
continuous possession for mere 50 years' any time prior to
l.l.197o-Mortgagee ceased to be a mortgagee-in-possession from 14.3.1969 E
and continued only as judgment-debtor unlawfully-There/ ore, first condition
not fulfillei:f-Mortgagee having ceased to be in lawful possession even before
1.1.1970 second condition also •wt fulfilled-Hence, m01tgagee not entitled
-'·
to the benefit of S. 4A.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : Sections 60 and 83.
F
Mortgage-Redemption of-Suit for--Decreed--Mortgagor deposited
mortgage amount and value of improvements-Held : Relationship of
mortgagor and mortgagee snapped-Mortgagee ceased to remain as
t'
such-Thereafter till actual delivery of possession mortgagee remained merely
as judgment-debtor in illegal possession and could be evicted.
G
Interpretation of statutes :
Non-obstante clause-{]nless conditions for applicability of a section
in a statute were fulfilled, non-obstante clause was of no help for invoking
provisions of Section.
H
813
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
Legal fiction-Cowt must ascertain purpose for which fiction was
B
c
created--Such fiction could not be extended beyond purpose for which it was
created on analogy or by addition or deletion of words not contemplated by
legislature.
The suit land was mortgaged in the year 1896 by predecessor-in-
interest of the respondent decree-holder with the predecessor-in-interest
of the appellants. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent filed a
suit in 1946 for redemption of the usufrcutuary mortgage. The suit was
decreed and after dismissal of second appeal, became final in 1960. There-
after, the respondent-mortgagor filed Execution Petition for recovery of
possession of the property and in the execution proceedings he deposited
the mortgage amount and value of improvements on 14.3.1969. During the
pendency of the execution proceedings Section 4A of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1964 came into force.
The appellants contended before the Executing Court that they were
D entitled to the benefit of Section 4A of the Act. Therefore, they could not
be evicted from the suit property in their possession as they had become
deemed tenants of the lands occupied by them. The Executing Court
rejected these contentions and that decision was upheld by the Appellate
Court and Revisional Court. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the
E
present appeal.
F
G
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that there was a
non-obstante clause for the applicability of Section 4A and despite there
being a judgment, decree or order against the appellants which had
become final they were entitled to get the benefit of this Section; and that
the words"immediately preceding the commencement" occurring in Section
4A should be given a more expanded meaning as this was a beneficial
legislation.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Section 4.A(l) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964
will operate notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court
against the concerned mortgagee in possession if the following conditions
are satisfied : [822-C]
H
1. He must be a mortgagee in possession of the land on the date of
"-
MANCHER! PUTHUSSERI AHMED v. KUTHIRA VATIAM ESTATE RECEIVER 815
the coming into force of the Section which is not retrospective in nature A
meaning thereby the person who wants the benefit of Section 4A must be
a mortgagee in possession of land on 1.1.1970. [822-D]
2. Such a mortgagee in possession on 1.1.1970 must satisfy the
further condition that he was holding the land comprisExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.