OTHAYATH LEKSHMY AND ANR. versus NELLACHINKUNIYIL GOVINDAN NAIR AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 539 · Decided: 19-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

OTHA YA TH LEKSHMY AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
NELLACHINKUNIYIL GOVINDAN NAIR AND ORS. 
-~-
APRIL 19, 1990 
[B.C. RAY ANDS. RA1NAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act-Amended by 9 of 1967 & 35 of 1969-
Section 13(B)-When the tenant is entitled for restoration of possession 
' 
or when the bona fide purchaser is entitled for protection. 
':( 
Constitution of India, 1950. Article 136-lnterference of Supreme 
y 
Court-Where manifest injustice or grave miscarriage of Justice results. 
c 
The appellants tiled an Execution Application in 1970 in the Court 
of Munsiff under Section 13(B) of the Land Reforms Act 1969 for the 
-;< 
restoration of the possession of the properties which were sold in Court 
auction in pursuance of a decree for arrears of rent. The decree holder 
and Court auction purchasers were close relatives. The sale took place on 
D 
26.11.1962 and \vas confirmed on 14.8.1964. It is the 3rd Respondent a 
stranger in the present appeal who purchased the property in the Court 
auction and got the possession of the same on 9.1.1965 from the appel-
larits. The appellants trespassed ·into the suit property again and were 
ejected in 1966 pursuant to a decree in a suit. Thereafter the 3rd 
~ 
Respondent i.e. the auction purchaser assigned the property in favour 
E 
of Respondents No. 1 & 2 who were the close relatives vide sale deeds 
dated 5.12.1966 (Exts A2 and A3). The appellants had already fded 
Execution Application, for restoration of possession after making 
necessary deposit for the purchase money under section 6 of Act 9 of 
1967. The same was pending when Act 35of1969 came into force and so 
the appellants made an application with a prayer that the earlier 
F 
~ .. -
deposit be treated as a deposit under section 13(B) of 1969 Act. 
, 
~· 
The Court auction. purchaser i.e. 3rd Respondent and his 
assignees Respondents No. 1 & 2 strongly contended that appellants 
have no interest in the properties. The appellants attacked the validity 
of the sale deeds being made without consideration. The trial Court 
G 
held that the appellants were tenants when they were dispossessed and 
also held that the deposit made by th~ appellants was sufficient for 
restoration of possession, and Respondents No. l & 2 are not bona fide 
~ purchasers for consideration, and hence set aside the sale. 
' 
The Respondents No. l & 2 made application before the sub-court 
H 
539 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
and the court held the petitioners were competent to maintain the appli-
cation and were bona fide purchasers as per records such as revenue 
and tax receipts plus the admission of the vendor and vendee as to the 
payment of consideration. As to the deposit made hy the appellants it 
was considered to be sufficient in case they were found entitled for 
restoration of possession; set aside the Trial Court order and allowed 
the appeal. 
The appellants therefore filed E.S.A. in the High Court and the 
High Court upheld that the decision and the decree of the lower Appel-
late Court as per evidence, and as circumstances of the case complied 
with public records establishing that Respondents I & 2 are the bona 
fide purchasers for consideration. But the first appellate court concur-
red with the Trial Court regarding the deposit already made to be 
sufficient and the interest accrued would be directed to be deposited if 
the appellants were found entitled to restoration of po8session. The said 
finding has not been dislodged by the High Court. 
Allowing the Special Leave Petition, this Court, 
HELD: In the instant case, two substantial questions are involved 
i.e. (1) whether respondents l & 2 are bona fide purchasers of the 
scheduled land in dispute for adequate consideration and thereby 
entitled to the benefit of the proviso inserted vide Act 35 of 1969 to sec. 
l3(B)(l). [547F] 
(2) Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of sub-
section (l) of section 13(B) of the Act. [547F-G] 
As per section l3(B)-where any holding has been sold in execu-
tion of any decree for arrears of rent and the tenant has been dis-
possessed of the holding after the 1st day of April 1964 and before 
the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 
1969, such sale shall stand set aside and such tenant shall be entitled to 
restoration of possession of the holding subject to the provisions of this 
section. [558 B-C] 
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in any case 
where the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.