PARAMESWARAN GOVINDAN versus KRISHNAN BHASKARAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 06-02-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
PARAMESWARAN GOVINDAN 
v. 
KRISHNAN BHASKARAN AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 6, 1992 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND K. J. REDDY, JJ.] 
Kera/a La11d Refonns Act,. 1963-Sectioii 132 (2)-Reope11i11g of a 
decree-<:011ditio11s-Redemption of mortgage decree-Reope11i11g-Legality 
of 
Kera/a La11d Refonns Act, 1963-Section 2 (57)-'Te11ant---Constntc-
tio11-lngredients-'Mortgage' u/ss. 60, 76 (h), 83. Transfer of Property Act, 
whether te11ant-Payment of decreta/ amount (inclusive mortgage amount) 
prior to comi11g i11to force of the Ame11di11g Act 35 of 1969-Effect. 
Kera/a Compensatio11 for Te11ants Improvements Act, 1958-Sectio11s 
4, 5 read with section 60, Tra11sfer of Property Act-Decree of ei'ictio11 of 
te11ant-Executio11 of---Conditio11s-Right and liabilities 1111der a prc-cxisti11g 
contract- Whether preserved-Possessio11 11/s 60, T.P. Act on redemption of 
mortgage whether affected. 
Kera/a Compe11satio11 for Te11ants Improvements Act, 1958--0bject of 
Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1963-Sectio11 4-A read with Sectio11 4, 
Kera/a Compe11satio11 for Tena11ts Improvements Act, 1958-Disti11c-
ti0n-No11-completio11 of 50 years conti11uo11s possession 011 the date whe11 
the Ame11di11g Act 35 of 1969 came into force-Effect. 
Kera/a Land Refonns Act, 1963-Sectio11s 13, 54 (2)-Vesting of lands 
in lite State-Whether /a11d held by mortgagees vests. 
-
The appellant was a mortgagor and the respondent No. I· derendant 
No. 4 was one of the mortgagees. The suit for redemption of mortgage tiled 
by the appellant was decreed providing for payment of Rs. 500, and Rs. 
943/9.2 towards improvements as a condition for redemption. 
The appellate court in appeal enhanced the sum for improvements 
H 
by Rs. 256/8.4. 
582 
•
••
.• 
• 
P. GOVINDAN v. BHASKARAN 
583 
When appellant filed an execution application, the respondent filed A 
another application under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improve-
ments Act, 1958 claiming a further sum for improvements: 
When it was pending, the appellant deposited the decretal amount 
including the enhanced sum decreed by the appellate court. 
The respondent's application was allowed and appellant was 
directed to pay a total amount of Rs.' 4,149.66 paise inclusive of decretal 
amount. 
B 
Thereafter, the respondents filed another application to reopen the C 
decree u/s. 132 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 contending that . 
he was a tenant u/s. 4A of the Act, having been continuously in possession 
for over 50 years and that, therefore, the decree of eviction cannot be 
executed against the respondent •. 
The executing court dismissed it, _but on revision, the High Court D 
declared that the respondent was a 'deemed tenant' u/s. 4A of the Kerala 
~ 
Land Refofllls Act, against which this appeal was filed. 
The respondent No. 1 contended that he was a tenant u/s. 2 (57) of 
the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that u/s. 72 of the Act the appellant no 
longer was the holder of the land and the land stood vested In the State. 
Allowing the appeal of the mortgagor and dismissing the C.R.P., this 
Court, 
E 
, f-
HELD : 1.01. If there is a decree passed in one of the four Acts 
F 
< 
enumerated in sub-s. 2 of s. 132 and the decree remained unexecuted and 
pursuant to which possession was not effected, then on the commencement 
of the Kerala Land Reforms Act a tenant or landlord may make an 
application upon which the decree would be reopened and be disposed of 
in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [588B) 
1.02. The decree in question is only a redemption decree pursuant 
to which the mortgagor is entitled to possession, on redemption of 
mortgage, under s.60 of T.P. Act. Therefore, the very application to reopen 
the decree itself is misconceived, without jurisdiction and authority of law. 
G 
[588B-C] H 
A 
B 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 1 S.C.R. 
2.01. Section 2(57) of the Act, defined 'tenant' means any person who 
has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being 
allowed to possess and enjoy any land by a person entitled to lease that 
land. There should exist jural relationsl!ip of landlord and tenant and 
pursuant to a lease for consideration possession was given and the lease 
remained in possession· enjoying the land on payment of rent or other 
consideration. [588D-E] 
2.02. The mortgagee in possession of the hypothica for a continuous 
period of not less than 50 years 'immediately preceding' the commence-
ment of the Amending Act 35 of 1969 is deemed to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.