Case title:
Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr. Vs. Shibu Mathew & Anr.
Date of Order:
16th May, 2023
Bench:
Justice A S Bopanna, Justice Dipankar Datta
SUBJECT
- Mrs. Cherian filed OS No. 28/1987 to demonstrate her ownership of land in Village Nattakom, Kerala, and to reclaim control of the property as well as any profits from the Defendants (Deceased Mr. Mathews and his sons).
- The Executing Court was able to move forward with the Appellants’ motion and assess the objections on their own merits after the Court affirmed the contested decision and dismissed the appeals without incurring any fees.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- The 1958 Agrarian Relations Bill was approved with a few small changes. In 1960, 1963, and 1964, the legislature passed additional land reform legislation. But on January 1, 1970, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, passed by the C. Achutha Menon administration, went into effect, ending the feudal system and guaranteeing the rights of land tenants.
- India’s civil court system is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (1908), a procedural law.
BRIEF FACTS
- Mrs. Cherian filed OS No. 28/1987 to establish her ownership of land in Village Nattakom, Kerala, and reclaim possession and profits from the Defendants.
- Mrs. Cherian claimed that Mr. Mathew had expressed his intention to purchase the Suit Property from her deceased husband, but the sale was incomplete. The Land Tribunal determined that Mr. Mathew was a cultivating tenant entitled to protection under the Kerala Land Reform Act (KLR), leading to the dismissal of the Suit.
- The High Court approved A.S. No. 27/1991 and dismissed CMA No. 34/1999 upon the appeal of Ms. Cherian, confirming that Mr. Mathew had just been the suit property’s caretaker.
- Mr. Thomas and Mr. Abraham ( Mr. Mathew’s sons) filed A.S. No. 219/2001 before the High Court, which resulted in a modification of the Decree, with Mrs. Cherian obligated to deposit Rs. 25,99,250 as compensation and the Defendants to vacate the property and surrender possession to Mrs. Cherian.
- [Additional facts]
- The Executing Court granted the Appellants’ request for possession of the property, but the Respondents objected, leading to multiple objections in primary execution proceedings.
- The Appellants filed a petition before the High Court, which was directed to consider the Appellants’ arguments and make a decision by June 30, 2018.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The counsel Mr. Diwan argued that the pleadings in S.L.P. (C) No. 24344/2014 did not disclose the presence of any other individuals in possession of the property mentioned in the Decree. The Respondents had no legitimate rights to the property and lacked the legal standing to resist the Decree.
- The individuals who claimed to have purchased different plots from Mr. Mathew failed to provide title documents and their objection petitions in the Executing Court are baseless and cannot be upheld. The Appellants have already complied with the court’s directions and the Respondents have been in possession of the property without handing it over.
- He cited Supreme Court decisions to support his contentions, such as Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram, Board of Trustees vs. Nikhil Gupta, Sriram Housing Finance and Investments India Ltd. Vs. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, and Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar vs. Kalu Ram and Ors. These decisions held that a pendente lite purchaser had no right to offer resistance or cause obstruction.
- The appeal argued that the justice of the situation required setting aside the contested order and giving appellants possession of the decretal property.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Mr. Chitambaresh, the senior counsel representing the Respondents, argued that Mr. Mathew was a tenant of the entire property specified in the Decree and had constructed buildings on a portion of the property. Mrs. Cherian was a party in S.M. No. 107/1992 before the Land Tribunal, but did not challenge the Purchase Certificate. The Land Tribunal issued two additional Purchase Certificates to certain other Respondents in proceedings numbered SM Nos. 55 and 56/1989.
- The case of Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and T Vijendradas & Anr. vs. M. Subramanian & Ors establish that claims filed under Section 47 of the CPC are valid and maintainable, even if the right asserted is independent of the judgment debtor.
- He argued that the Executing Court should determine the objections on the merits.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- In the case of Babulal v. Raj Kumar & Ors.16, it was determined by the court that prior to the removal of any obstruction, it is necessary to conduct a determination in accordance with Order XXI Rule 98 and record a finding accordingly. This principle is also supported by the decision in Brahmdeo Chaudhary (supra).
- The Executing Court needs to examine the impact of the Purchase Certificate obtained by Mr. Mathew during the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The Respondents argue that the Purchase Certificate was issued under the KLR Act and was unchallenged by Mrs. Cherian. The Executing Court’s order has deemed the objections valid, warranting further investigation. The Court finds no legal flaw in the order that would justify interference.
- The Respondents have the right to contest the application filed by the Appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC. The Executing Court was justified in considering the objections as maintainable, but the Supreme Court should not entertain appeals without the Appellants challenging the order before the High Court.
- The Court upheld the order being challenged and dismissed the appeals without cost, allowing the Executing Court to proceed with the Appellants’ application and objections on their own merits.
- The Executing Court should resolve the disputed issues in accordance with the law and discourage parties from seeking unnecessary adjournments. Contempt Petition (C) No. 2091/2018, initiated by the Appellants to penalize Mr. Thomas and Mr. Abraham for disregarding the order dated October 13, 2014, is no longer relevant at this stage and is dismissed.
