IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 RSA.No. 1221 of 2010() ---------------------- AS.181/2006 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.160/2000 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------- MAILAMMAL, D/O.LATE MANJA MOOPPAN, RESIDING AT KANHIRAMPATHY, MALAMPUZHA,PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------ 1. PONNAMMA, W/O.MOSSES. 2. JOHNY, S/O.MOSSES 3. THANKAMMA, D/O.MOSSES 4. PETER, S/O.MOSSES. ALL ARE RESIDING AT AYYAPPANPOTTA, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678651. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.1221 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November 2010 JUDGMENT The defendant in a suit for injunction is the appellant. She is a member of a Schedule Tribe. Against the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit, she had previously filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer for reconveyance of the property involved in the suit invoking the provisions under the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (in short, KST Act), alleging that the respondents/plaintiffs had trespassed upon the property and reduced it into their possession. That application was resisted by the respondents contending that their predecessor, husband of the first plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs, had obtained title and possession over the property for a sale price of ` 250/-, under an oral sale from the predecessor of the defendant, her father. After enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.A3 order directing reconveyance of the land to the defendant. That order was challenged by the respondents/plaintiffs preferring an appeal before the competent authority, the District Collector, who, after reappreciating the materials tendered, set aside Ext.A3 order holding that there was a transfer of the property by the R.S.A No.1221 OF 2010 - 2 - predecessor of the defendant in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs, and in view of the subsequent amendments made enabling the transferee having possession of less than two hectares of land to retain his possession over a land transferred by a Scheduled Tribe, the respondents/plaintiffs have obtained valid rights over the property. Pursuant to the proceedings covered by Ext.A1 and Ext.A3 as indicated above, the present suit was laid by the plaintiffs raising threat of trespass over the suit property at the instance of the defendant who had been worsted in the proceedings under the above Act. The trial court, on the materials placed, found merit in the contentions raised by the appellant/defendant that no right could be claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of an oral sale of the property and on that basis, nonsuited the plaintiffs. As against the dismissal of their suit, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the lower appellate court, after reappreciating the materials, more particularly Ext.A1 order issued by the District Collector under the KST act, reversed the dismissal of the suit and granted a decree of injunction to the plaintiffs as applied for. Propriety and correctness of that decision is challenged in the appeal by the defendant. R.S.A No.1221 OF 2010 - 3 - 2. I heard the counsel for the appellant. Irrespective of the proceedings under the KST Act and the orders passed thereunder, in the present suit for injunction, the entitlement of such a discretionary relief canvassed by the plaintiffs required to be considered with reference to the question whether they have settled possession over the property, and overlooking that aspect, the lower appellate court wrongly interfered with the dismissal of the suit by the trial court placing too much importance on Ext.A1 order is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Perusing the judgments rendered by both the courts below with reference to the provisions covered by the KST Act, I find that Ext.A1 order passed under the aforesaid Act has decisive and binding force with respect to the rights claimed by the parties over the suit property. Sub Section (5) of Section 7 of the KST Act spells out in unmistakable terms that any order passed by the competent authority in respect of a dispute relating to the reconveyance of land belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, proceedings of which are initiated under the Act, from an appeal preferred from an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, 'shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law'. When that be statutory interdiction, no court can ignore the R.S.A No.1221 OF 2010 - 4 - binding force of Ext.A1 order passed under the KST Act in respect of the property covered by the suit, as between the parties thereto. So much so, it was no longer open to the defendant to resist the right claimed by the plaintiffs over the suit property which was found in their favour by the competent authority under the KST Act. The lower appellate court in the aforesaid circumstances involved in the case was fully justified in reversing the dismissal of the suit and granting a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. There is no merit in the appeal, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv