SHAMMA BHATT & ORS. versus T. RAMAKRISHNA BHATT

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 27-03-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. KHALID · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHAMMA BHAIT & ORS. 
v. 
T. RAMAKRISHNA BHA IT 
r-• 
MARCH 27, 1987 
B 
[V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Kera/a Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act. 1958-Ss. h 
2(d) and 5-Tenant-Compensation for Improvement-When avail-
• 
able. 
_ _. -
c 
The appellants' father had obtained sale of the property in ques-
•,\. 
lion during the minority of the respondent through his widowed 
mother, who was acting as his guardian. The respondent, on attaining 
majority, filed a suit for declaration that the said sale-deed was invalid 
~ 
and not binding upon him and for recovery of possession of the pro-
D 
perty. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit 
was affirmed by the Appellate Court. In Second Appeal, the High Court 
set aside the judgments of the Court below, allowed the appeal and 
decreed the suit, directing recovery of possession of properties on pay-
ment of Rs.4,700 being the sale consideration and a sum of Rs.4,164 
being the compensation for improvement. The Special Leave Petition 
E 
filed by the appellants was dismissed. 
i-
The respondent tiled execution, which was resisted by the appel-
!ants on the ground that the properties could not be ordered to be 
delivered without payment of the value of improvements effected by 
them subsequent to the year 1952. They also tiled an application for the 
F 
issue of a commission to revalue the improvements, claiming that they ., 
had effected improvements to the tune of Rs.80,000. The respondent 
contested this application denying that the appellants had made any 
~, 
improvements and contended that the question of improvements had 
been concluded by the judgment of the High Court in the Second 
Appeal. The executing Court dismissed this petition. The District Judge 
G 
allowed the appeal filed by the appellants and set aside the order of the 
executing Court. The High Court set aside the judgment of the District 
Judge and restored the order of the executing Court and directed re-
co very of the property. The High Court observed that "the sum of 
~ 
Rs.4,164.8.0 was directed to be paid not because the respondents were 
entitled to it, but because the appellant agreed to pay it." 
H 
In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellants it was 
700 
SHAMMA BHATT v. T,R. BHATT 
701 
Jo i 
contended: (1) that the judgment of the High Court was wrong and that 
A 
the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was as a result of confusion 
regarding the pleadings in the case and the question of law involved; (2) 
that at the trial stage an issue was struck as issue No. 8 regarding the 
value of improvements which was adjudicated and the value of im-
provements was adjudged; (3) that the appeUants were tenants within the 
·~ 
meaning of s. 2(d) of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improve-
B 
t 
ments Act, 1958 (Act 29 of 1958) and that their claim for value of 
improvements was made on the strength of s. 5 of the Act and, there-
- ~ fore, they are entitled to the value of improvements; and (4) that the 
value of improvements has to be ascertained under the Act on the 
execution side and their claim cannot be defeated by flourishing the 
judgment.of the High Court and the dismissal ofthe S. L .P. 
c 
I 1 
Dismissing the Appeal, 
HELD: 1. The suit was filed in 1952. At that time there was no 
enactment available for the defendant to claim value of improv~ments. 
Neither in the original written statement nor in the additional written 
D 
statement dated 15.11.1954, did the defendants claim the value of im-
provements under the Act. Though at the execution stage a plea was 
·~· 
raised under s. 5 of Act 29 of 1958, but in the Judgment in the Second 
Appeal No. 464 of 1964 dated 27.11.1969, the Division Bench decided 
that no claim for improvements was made either under s. 51 of the 
' 
Transfer of Property Act or under s. 4 of Act 29 of 1958. Moreover, the 
E 
High Court also found that no objection was taken by the appellants in 
the lower Appellate Court or before the High Court to the finding that 
-... 
In case of eviction the defendant would be entitled to Rs.4,164.8.0. as 
~) 
compensation. This judgment was rendered when Act 29 of 1958 had 
already come into force. Against this judgment a special leave petition 
; 
. 
was filed and dismissed. Thus, there is a concluded finding against the 
F 
appellants that they were not entitled to anything more than the value of 
improvements decreed by the trial Court. [706H; 707 A-CJ 
2. Section 5 comes into o

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