SANKARANARAYANAN POTTI (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus K.SREEDEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 26-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SANKARAN ARA YANAN POTT! (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
K. SREEDEVI AND ORS. 
MARCH 26, 1998 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR, K. VENKATASWAMY AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Land Reforms : 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 Amended in 1969-Section 72B-Final 
C decree proceedings in mortgage suit pending-Claim of mortgagee as a 
Cultivating tenant-Subsequent amendment of Land Reforms Act-Conferring 
benefits on cultivating tenant-Mortgagee's application raising preliminary 
objection-Rejected by Civil Court in limine-Whether rejection valid-Held 
no, it is for the Civil Court to decide ivhether the mortgagee can claim the 
D :ienefit of amendment. 
Civil Procedure Code. 1908-Sections 9 & 11-Kera!a Land Reforms 
Amendment Acl 1969-Section 108(3), 125(1; Mortgage suit pending 
between parties- Mortgagee's claim as a tenant before Land Tribunal-
Certificate of purchase obtained by tenant-Whether binding 011 the Civil 
E Court-Held, No-Order of Land Tribunal is without jurisdiction and hence 
a nullity-Held, finding of Tribunal 11ot res judicata. 
The appellants' predecessor was an Otti mortgagee of the properties 
which originally belonged to Respondent No. I and his other co-owners. In 
a Suit filed in 1958 for redemption, a preliminary decree was passed by the 
F Trial Court for redemption of Otti mortgage, on payment of mortgage amount 
and value of improvements made by the Plaintiffs. The appeals against the 
\ 
same was dismissed and the preliminary decree became final in 1969. In the 
meanwhile, the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 which had come into force 
with effect from 1.4.1964 got amended by Amending Act 35of1969 giving 
the Appellant a statutory right to purchase the suit mortgage property as he 
G got covered under the term "tenant". On an application under Section 42B 
of the Amending Act of 1969 by the tenant, the Land Tribunal passed a final 
order directing issuance of a certificate of purchase in his favour and the 
certificate was issued under Section 72K. Subsequently, in 1980 an 
application for final decree was filed by a co-owner with an application for 
H condonation of delay. The Appellants contended that the application was 
444 
..,. 
SANKARAN ARA YANAN POTT! v. K. SREEDEVI 
445 
barred by time, that the Otti is a tenancy protected by Land Reforms Act and A 
that since the Land Tribunal has found him entitled to fixity of tenure and 
assignment of landlord's rights, the suit itself ought to be dismissed. The 
Trial Court dismissed the final decree application on the ground of limitation. 
The appeal before District Judge was allowed and the matter was remanded 
to Trial Court for fresh consideration of objections. A Miscellaneous Appeal B 
before the High Court was dismissed and the order of remand became final. 
The appellant then field an application I.A 1307/1994 raising the 
question whether the Plaintiffs were entitled for a final decree as a 
preliminary issue. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court and the 
revision petition against the same was also dismissed. 
On appeal, it was contended by the Appellants that after the preliminary 
decree got confirmed by the High Court the Act of 1963 got amended and 
c 
a new statutory right got conferred on the appellant to become a deemed 
purchaser of the Suit land which has earlier held by him as Otti mortgagee; 
that as this was a new statutory right he was entitled to get it enforced D 
through the Tribunal; that he had obtained a certificate which has become 
final and therefore on the principle of res judicata the final decree 
proceedings were required to be dismissed as against him; that the decision 
in the case of Mathevan Padmanabhan was required to be reconsidered as 
it had erroneously held that proceedings under Section 728 of the Amending E 
Act could not be entertained by the Tribunal till the Civil Court resolved the 
controversy whether the claimant was a tenant or not, that the Amending Act 
was a complete code in itself laying down its own machinery for adjudication 
ofrights of parties and as the decision was rendered by a competent tribunal 
which had become final it could not be said that Section 728 proceedings 
could not be finalised by the Tribunal till the question of tenancy was finally F 
decided by the Civil Court in the hierarchy of appeals, that once the Land 
Tribunal issues certificate of purchase under Section 72k of the Amending 
Act it becomes final and conclusive and cannot be gone behind by the Civil 
Court; that the earlier decision of 

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