LexMATHEVAN PILLAI PADMANABHA PILLAI versus ARULAPPAN NADAR YOVAN NADAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MATHEVAN PILLAI PADMANABHA PILLAI v. ARULAPPAN NADAR YOVAN NADAR AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 4, 1998 (K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, J.1.] Kera/a Land Refomzs Act, 1964 : Section 4-A (as amended by Act 35 of 1969). A B Deemed tenant-Pre-condition.1-Mortgagor executed us11f111ctua1y C 11101tgage inf avour of mo1tgagee in 1094 ME ( 1919 )--Doi:wnent executed in 1119 ME ( 1944) recited that 11101tgage amount was received by m01tgagee and land was swrendered to mo1tgag01-A second m01tgage was given by the same m01tgagdr to the same mmtgagee in ll22 ME ( 1947) for a larger amount inclusive of the amount of the earlier mo1tgage-Mo1tgagor's suit for redemption of the second mmtgage resisted by moltgagee on ground that the D land was in mmtgagee's possession for a continuous pe1iod of more than 50 years p1ior to the relevant date i.e. 1. 1. 1970 and, therefore, 11101tgagee was emitted to fu:ity of tenure by vi1tue of S. 4-A-Trial cowt passed a decree for redemption-Appellate cowt found as a fact that possession never passed 011 to the m01tgagor-Held: Mmtgagee must hold the land comp1ised in the mo1tgage for a continuous pe1iod of 50 years--17zrouglwut the peliod of the said 50 years the land must be under mmtgage though there ca11 be more than one m01tgage-l11 view of the finding of fact by appellate coult that possession never passed on to the m01tgagor, the appellate cowt was 1iglzt i11 dismissi11g the suit for redemption. The appellant's predecessor executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the respondents in 1094 ME (1919). In the year 1119 ME (1944) E F a document was executed in which it was recited that the mortgagees had received the mortgage amount and the land was surrendered to the mortgagor. Simultaneously, another document was executed by the same G mortgagor to the same mortgagees. In the year 1122 ME (1947) a further mortgage was given by the mortgagor to the mortgagees for a larger amount inclusive of the amount of the earlier mortgage. The appellant filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage of the year 1122 ME (1947). The suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground H 437 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A that the respondents had been holding the land continuously for more than 50 years prior tO the relevant date i.e. 1.1.1970 and, therefore, the respon- dents were entitled to fixity of tenure by virtue of Section 4-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (as amended by Act 35 of 1969). The trial court passed a decree for redemption. The appellate court had found as a fact B that possession did not pass on to the mortgagor although the recitals of the document by which the first mortgage was discharged showed that possession was handed over to the mortgagor. Thus the appeal filed was allowed which was confirmed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that there was a break C in the continuity of possession and, therefore, the period of 50 years mentioned in Section 4-A of the Act should be calculatelf frotn the date on which the fresh mortgage was executed. Dismissing the appeal, this Court D HELD : 1.1. Section 4-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (as amended by Act 35 of 1969) requires only the holding of the land comprised in the mortgage for a continuous period of not less than fifty years by the mortgagee or lessee. Section 4-A does not insist upon there being only one mortgage throughout the period of fifty years. The language of Section 4-A E is wide enough to show that there can be more th~n one mortgage but the mortgagee shall hold the land comprised in t~e mortgage continuously for a period of not less than fifty years. [440-D-E] 1.2. In view of the finding of the appellate court that the mortgagees were in possession of the Land for a continuous period of more than 50 F years, Section 4-A of the Act was attracted and, therefore, the appellate court was right in dismissing the suit for redemption. [ 439-F; 441-C] G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3727 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.85 of the Kerala High Court in S.A. No. 774 of 1980. G.V. Chandrashekhar and T.G.N. Nair for the Appellant. H P.S. Poti and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Respondents. M. PILLAI P. PILLAI v. A NADAR Y. NADAR[SRINIVASAN, J.] The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 439 SRINIVASAN, J. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.