THOMAS ANTONY versus VARKEY VARKEY

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 15-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

THOMAS ANTONY 
A 
v. 
VARKEY VARKEY 
NOVEMBER 15, 1999 
(K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.) 
B 
Land Laws: 
Kera/a land Reforms Act, 1963-Sections 74, 125(/) to (7)-Status of 
a person as a tenant or as a Kudikidappulwra1r-Plea regarding, before a C 
Civil Court-Reference to Land Tribunal by t/tie Civil Court under Section 
125(3)-Making of-Held, unless the question regarding status of a person 
as a tenant genuinely arises the Civil Court is not obliged to make the 
reference-Civil Court has power to consider, whether such a plea regarding 
tenancy is a bona fide contention or has been raised without any legal D 
foundation and is being raised with the sole intention to gain time by 
protracting the litigation. 
Appel/ant-Defendant claiming tenancy rights on the basis of oral lease 
allegedly created in 197 /-Reference to Land Tribunal by Civil Court-
land Tribunal holding that Appellant-Defendant was a lessee of the land in E 
question-Subsequently Civil Court recording a finding contrary to that of 
the Tribunal-Tenability of-Held, the Trial Court erred in not accepting the 
finding of the Tribunal and the contrary finding recorded is without jurisdiction 
and therefore unsustainable-Civil Court could not go into the very same 
question again after the decision of the Land Tribunal is received by it- F 
However, no such constraint is placed on.the Appellate Court while deciding 
the appeal arising from the suit or proceeding and the question could be 
examined afresh by the Appellate Court-Before the Appellate Court it is 
open to the parties to challenge the finding recorded by the Trial Court on 
the basis of the decision of the Tribunal as any other finding-High Court 
in appeal, rightly holding that the claim of tenancy set up by the Appellant- G 
Defendant is invalid being against the statutory bar of creation of fature 
tenancies envisaged in Section 74-No interference called for. 
The respondent-plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and was in 
possession of the same on the basis of a decree issued by Munsif Court He H 
431 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A engaged one C to look after the cultivation of the property till 1972. From 
1973 to 1975, the respondent- plaintiff engaged the appellant -defendant to 
look after the cultivation work. Thereafter his services were terminated. 
Subsequently the appellant-defendant created obstruction in the cultivation 
work carried on by the respondent-plaintiff as a result of which the respondent-
plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Munsif for permanent prohibitory 
B injunction restraining the appellant defendant from trespassing upon the suit 
land. During pendency of the suit, the appellant-defendant came upon the 
property and took possession of the same without any manner of right, title 
or interest therein. The respondent - plaintiff thereafter instituted a suit in 
the Court of Subordinate Judge for recovery of possession of the suit property 
C on the strength of title and for mesne profits. The appellant defendant on the 
other hand claimed to be a tenant in possession of the property on the basis 
of an oral lease in 1971. 
The Trial Court referred the issues regarding oral lease arrangement 
and claim of tenancy by the appellant defendant, to the Land Tribunal under 
D Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The !and Tribunal came 
to the conclusion that the appellant defendant was in possession of the Land 
as a lessee. The Trial Court did not accept the finding of the Tribunal and on 
a fresh assessment of.the evidence on record held that the oral lease set up 
the appellant defendant was completely false and that he was not a tenant of 
E the suit property being hit by Section 74 of the Act In appeal, the High Court 
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit. Hence the 
present appea~'. 
On behalf of the appellant-defendant, it was contended that the Trial 
Court had no jurisdiction to record a finding contrary to that recorded by the 
F Land Tribunal in the reference made under Section 125(3) of the Act, and so 
the finding of the Trial Court that the appellant-defendant was not the lessee 
of the suit land was incompetent and unsustainable; and that the High Court 
erred in confirming the judgment based on such illegal finding. 
On behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, it was contended that in view of 
G the statutory bar against creation of any tenancy after commencement of the 
Act under S

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