PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA versus MINIYATAN ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 12-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 2 S.C.R. 796 : 
A 
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA 
.).; 
II. 
MINIYATAN ZACHARIAS AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 1231 of 2007) 
B 
FEBRUARY 12, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
.,_,-> 
... 
Kerela Land Reforms Act, 1963 - ss .. 13, 72, 728 and 72 
K(2) - Certificate of assignment of right title and interest of 
c landlord in favour of tenant - Grant of - Held: Land tribunal on 
reference made by civil court is required to arrive at a finding 
that the applicant was cultivating tenant uls. 13 - On facts, 
land tribunal issued two certificates of assignment for the same . 
land to appellant-tenant and respondent - Appellant proved 
D her title as also possession - Her husband was cultivating 
tenant in respect of the suit property- Certificate was granted 
~ 
in favour of tenant earlier and was not set aside on the ground 
of fraud or illegality, was conclusive even as against Land 
Tribunal - Thus, Land Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to 
E issue second certificate - High Court on basis of the findings 
of tribunal could not have held that tenant. was intermediatory 
and as such ·his estate also vested with respondent - Thus, 
order of High Court is unsustainable and set aside. 
Appellant's husband was in c.ultivating possession 
F of fiv~ items of properties as a tenant under one J. He 
· appli~d fo_r the c~rtificate of purchase· and was granted · 
.. the· same by the Land Tribunal in 1976. Respondents were 
.also granted certificate. of purchase for the same land in 
1977: Appeilant then filed suit for permanent injunction 
G and for recovery of possession of the immovable 
. properties in Schedule A and B of the plaint. The trial judge 
7·· 
decreed the suit for all the items of the suit land, except 
item no 1 of Schedule 8. The appellate co~r:t upheld t~.-e .. 
findings with regard to item no 1 ·in plaint B Sch~dule; 
H 
796 
PATINHARE PURAYIL NABEESUMMA v. MINIYATAN 
797 
ZACHARIAS AND'ANOTHER 
.. 
however set aside the finding with regard to item no 2 in A 
the plaint B Schedule. The matter was remanded to the 
lower court for refering the matter to the land tribunal. The 
Land tribunal opined ·that except the receipts and the 
• 
purchase certificate, the appellant did not produce any 
other title deeds evidencing tenancy and the respondents 8 
"-:1 
though were in possession of the property but did ·not 
possess any valid title deeds evidencing tenancy, and· 
... 
thus, had no tenancy right over the said property. Trial 
~ 
court in view of the fact that the appellant was able to prove 
his possession by producing tax receipts from 1955 c 
onwards; whereas the defendants were paying tax from 
1977 onwards, held that the appellant had title to item No.2 
.., 
in the B schedule property and was entitled to recover 
'• 
possession of the property from the respondent. The first 
appellate court upheld the order of the trial court D 
..;. 
Respondents then filed second appeal. High Court held 
that as both the parties failed to prove their title over the 
property, the respondent being in prior possession over 
item No.2 of Schedule B of the suit property, the suit 
should have been dismissed to that extent. Hence the 
E 
~ 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 72-8 of the Kerela Land Reforms 
J 
1 
Act, 1963 empowers the Tribunal to entertain an 
application for assignment of the right, title and interest F 
of the landlord in favour of the tenant on payment of a 
price to be determined in the manner envisaged 
thereunder. Therefore, jurisdiction of the Tribunal was 
restricted. Before arriving at a conclusion that the 
applicant was entitled to a certificate of assignment, a G 
' 
__ , 
finding was required to be arrived at that he was a 
cultivating tenant within the meaning of Section 13 of the 
Act. The properties of the erstwhile landlord or 
intermediates having vested in the State,· they were 
conferred a limited right, namely, the right to receive the 
H 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A sale proceeds. [Paras 25 and 26] [807-A, B, C, DJ 
2: 1 In respect of four items of the properties, the 
plaintiff-appellant has been able to prove her title as also 
the possession. The fact that her husband was the 
cultivating tehant in respect of the suit property is not fn 
B dispute. The tax receipts filed by her also go to show that 
the entire suit land was the subject matter of grant of 
tenancy by the landlord and if not from a date, tax has 
been

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