IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 35 of 2002 -------------------- ( AA.188/1997 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY.(LAND REFORMS),TRIVANDRUM SMC. 54/1992 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. ) REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MEMA KOCHAPPI, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MADAVOOR VILLAGE. 2. MEMA PODICHI, -DO-. -DO-. 3. CHANDRAN VELAYUDHAN, -DO-. -DO-. 4. SANTHA, W/O. CHELLAPPAN, VALIYAVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, KANNANMUKKU, KODUVAZHANNUR VILLAGE. 5. VALSALAKUMARY, D/O. CHELLAPPAN, -DO- -DO-. 6. SEETHA, D/O. CHELLAPPAN, -DO- -DO-. 7. SATHY, D/O. CHELLAPPAN, -DO- -DO-. (PETITIONER NOS. 6 AND 7 ARE MINORS RESPRESENTED BY THEIR LOCAL GUARDIAN (MOTHER) SANTHA, VALIYAVILAPUTHEN VEEDU. ) BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH ADV. SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PERUMAL GOPI, KUNNIL VEEDU, VALIYAKALA, MADATHARA MURI, KUNNIL VILLAGE, MADATHARA P.O. 2. KOCHUKURUMBA MEENAKSHI, -DO-. -DO-. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R.P. NO. 35 OF 2002 ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.73 OF 2002 IN C.R.P. NO. 35 OF 2002 DISMISSED. 15.02.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 35 OF 2002 ................................................................................... Dated this the 15th February, 2008 O R D E R The claim put forward by the petitioners that they are cultivating tenants in respect of an extent of 32 cents of land was rejected by the Land Tribunal and it was confirmed by the appellate authority. The revision petitioners challenge in this Revision the concurrent findings of the authorities below. 2. The property in question belonged to Perumal, father of the first respondent in the Revision (second respondent before the Land Tribunal). After the death of Perumal, the property was demised as per an 'ottikuzhikkanam' in the year 1958 in favour of Chandran, late husband of the first petitioner herein. O.S.No.131 of 1988 was filed by the respondents for redemption of that mortgage against the revision petitioners. In that suit, it was admitted by the revision petitioners that the transaction is a redeemable mortgage. The suit was decreed on 24.02.1990 and the decree has become final. The decree was put in execution and the property was delivered on 07.08.1991. 3. Before the institution of the suit, the proceedings in respect of the present case were initiated under section 72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal, Chirayinkeezhu showing the revision petitioners as cultivating tenants in respect of the property. The proceedings were dropped on account of default of the revision petitioners. On 30.03.1990, an application was filed by the petitioners and the proceedings before the Land Tribunal were revived and restored and it was re- numbered as S.M.C. 54 of 1992. By that time, the suit was decreed and delivery was C.R.P. No. 35 OF 2002 2 taken by the respondent. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the Ottikuzhikkanam executed in 1958 is really a lease and not a mortgage. They contended that the property was demised for enjoyment and not as a security for loan transaction. Before the civil court, they did not raise any such contention and it was admitted that the transaction was a mortgage. The civil court found that the transaction is a mortgage and a decree for redemption of mortgage was passed. The Land Tribunal rejected the contention raised by the petitioners that transaction is really a lease. It was held that the decision of the civil court is binding on the land reforms authorities. After having found that the transaction is a mortgage and the petitioners having conceded before the civil court that the transaction is a mortgage, they cannot be heard to contend that it amounts to a lease and that they are entitled to get the right, title and interest of the landlord assigned in their favour under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The suit for redemption could be decreed only on the finding that the defendants therein (revision petitioners) were mortgagees. The civil court having found that the revision petitioners herein are mortgagees and having passed a decree for redemption, the revision petitioners who are bound by the decree of the civil court cannot turn round and contend that they are cultivating tenants. The petitioners could claim any tenancy right only if the transaction was a lease and not a mortgage. That the transaction is a mortgage was finally decided by the civil court and that the decree was executed. After several years, the Land Tribunal could not, as rightly held by the Land Tribunal, allow the suo motu proceedings and issue purchase certificate in favour of the petitioners. The Land Tribunal rightly held that the petitioners are not cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure. The decision of the Land Tribunal was rightly affirmed by the Appellate C.R.P. No. 35 OF 2002 3 Authority . The findings of the authorities below are not illegal, improper or without jurisdiction. The authorities below did not fail to decide any question of law; nor can it be said that any question of law was wrongly decided by the authorities below. No grounds are made out for invoking jurisdiction of this court under section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Civil Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk C.R.P. No. 35 OF 2002 4 K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................ C.R.P. No.35 of 2002 ......................................................... Dated this the 15th February, 2008 O R D E R