NARAYANARU THRIVIKRANARU versus V. MADHAVAN POTTY AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 10-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARAYANARU THRIVIKRANARV 
-
v. 
V. MADHAVAN POTIY AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 10, 2000 
B 
(KT. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND 
S.S. MOHAMMAD OUADRI, JJ.J 
Kera/a La11d Refonns Act-Sectio11 12-Right to prove real nature of 
c 
tra11sacti01i-Execution of a document styling it as 'Otti a11d Kazhikanam' i11 
favour of respondent-Properties "'ere already outsta11ding 011 lease with 
.-
respo11del!t-Suit for redemption-Respondent's claim that he continued to be 
lessee of the property 11otwithstanding executio11 of document-Whether main-
tai11able-He/d, no finding recorded by all the courts that the document was 
a mortgage cannot be interfered with. 
D 
Suit properties were on lease with the first respondent. In 1943, a 
document title as 'Otti and Kuzhikanam' was executed in favour of the 
respondent in respect of the same properties. The appellant filed a suit for 
redemption of mortgage. First respondent alleged that he continued to be 
,, 
E 
a lessee of the property notwithstanding the execution of the document as 
it was not meant to terminate the earlier lease arrangement. The trial 
Court passed a decree for redem11tion of the mortgage, holding that the 
<:cc 
first respondent was in possession of the land as mortgagte and not as 
lessee. The decree for redemption was upheld in subsequent appeals. The 
appellant filed execution proceedings after depositing the entire amount 
F due. After the enactment of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which conferred 
fixity of tenure of the agricultural land, 1st respondent claimed himself as 
a tenant of the land, hence entitled to the protection envisaged in the Act. 
Dismissing respondent's claim, the execution court directed delivery of the 
suit property to be given to the appellant. However, in revision, the High 
G 
Court set aside the order of the execution court, holding that the earlier 
lease in favour of the first respondent did uot come to an end despite 
execution of the document title as 'Qtti and Kuzhikanam'. This appeal has 
c 
been filed against the order passed by the Single Judge. 
.--
First respondent contended that Section 12(i) of the Act enabled the 
H parties to reagitate such issues as to whether on the execution of that 
752 
-
NARA Y ANARL THRIVIKRANARL' v. V. !\1ADHA VAN. 
753 
document, the earlier lease survived the transaction covered by the said A 
document, notwithstanding any findings made in the judgment. The ques-
tion raised for consideration was whether first respondent succeeded in 
establishing that the transaction covered by the document was really a 
lease or that first respondent was a tenant of the suit properties. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. It was not open to the High Court to consider at this 
stage, whether the document did not come into force or whether the earlier 
lease survived the transaction covered by the said document. Those were 
the points hotly disputed during trial stage of the same litigation and 
definite findings have been made thereon by the trial court. Those findings 
were against the first respondent which were confirmed in appeal and they 
have become final. [757-B-C] 
B 
c 
1.2. Section 12 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, enables any person D 
interested in the land to prove that a transaction purporting to be a 
mortgage is, in substance, a transaction by way of lease. The non-obstante 
limb of the Section insulates a transaction which purports to be a 
mortgage, from any other law or judgment or decree. What is saved thereby 
is "the transaction purporting to be a mortgage.' But that saving clause is 
not a carte blanche for ignoring the transaction altogether. Section 12 of E 
the Act does not permit the court to supersede the lindim:s made by the 
Court to the effect that the earlier lease came to an end with the execution 
of the transaction which p0111orts to be a mortgage. In other words, what 
section 12 entitles a person is to prove the real substance of the transaction 
covered by the document, albeit the ostensible tenor of the document. 
p 
Hence the findings of the High Court in the impugned order cannot be 
salvaged with the aid of Section 12 of the Act. [757-F-H] 
1.3. There are two types of "Ottikuzhikanam". One type would be a 
mortgage within the meaning of Transfer of Property Act. The said type of 
"Ottilmzhikanam" is specifically excluded from the ambit of the definition. G 
It is the other category of non-mortgage "Ottikuzhikanam" alone has been 
brought within the purview of the definiti

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