SHRI.VEDA VYASA TRUST versus BALAGOPALAN A.K.

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

SHRI.VEDA VYASA TRUST v. BALAGOPALAN A.K. - RSA No. 965 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 5591 (16 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA No. 965 of 2006()

1. SHRI.VEDA VYASA TRUST,
... Petitioner

2. K.AHALYA SANKAR,

3. NALUKUDYAPARAMBIL SHANMUGHAN,

4. VALAPPIL BALAN, AGED 62 YEARS,

5. CHAYICHANTAKATH SREENIVASAN,

Vs

1. BALAGOPALAN A.K.,
... Respondent

2. KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 94 YEARS,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

For Respondent :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :16/03/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

R.S.A .NO.965 OF 2006 Dated 16th March 2007

J U D G M E N T

Defendants in O.S.217/1997 on the file of Munsiff court, Kozhikode-I are appellants. Plaintiffs are respondents. Respondents instituted the suit seeking decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession of plaint schedule property which was leased out to the trust represented by appellants on 7/1/1991 with the object of providing shelter for land less fishermen. Case of respondents was that in spite of expiry of several years of Trust did not do anything to achieve the object and lease created on 7/1/1991 is in violation of the provisions of Section 74 of Kerala Land Reforms Act and therefore is invalid and respondents are entitled to the decree sought for. Appellants in the written statement contended that though property was obtained for constructing houses, land was found to be unsuitable for constructing houses and therefore houses could not be constructed on the sea side and a shed was constructed  RSA 965/06 2 which was entrusted to one Valsan and they spent Rs.14,000/- for construction of shed and in any case they are entitled to get value of improvements and suit is to be dismissed.

2. Learned Munsiff framed necessary issues. On the evidence, learned Munsiff found that lease was created in 1991 in violation of Section 74 of Kerala Land Reforms Act and therefore it is invalid. Relying on the decision of this court in Muhammed v. Rakkiya (1994 (2) KLT 722) it was held that when lease created is illegal and in violation of Section 74 of Kerala Land Reforms Act respondents are entitled to file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and appellants have no right to continue in possession of the property and therefore granted a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Appellants challenged the decree and judgment before Sub court, Kozhikode in A.S.1/01. Learned Sub Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the decree and judgment passed by learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this second appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for appellants was heard. Argument of learned counsel appearing for appellants was that lease was created for charitable  RSA 965/06 3 purposes and therefore Section 74 of Kerala Land Reforms Act is not applicable and in any event appellants constructed a shed spending Rs.14,000/- and they are entitled to the value of improvements.

4. Learned Munsiff and learned Sub Judge rightly appreciated the case and found that the lease was in violation of Section 74 of Kerala Land Reforms Act. Courts below rightly found that as lease was in violation of Section 74 of Kerala Land Reforms Act, it is invalid and appellants cannot be claim any right under the lease. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recovery of possession of the property on the strength of their title.

4. Though it was contended that appellants have constructed a shed spending Rs.14,000/-, no evidence whatsoever, was adduced either to prove construction of shed or the expenses. None of the appellants were examined and no other evidence was adduced. In such circumstances, appellants are not entitled to claim value of improvements. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

uj. 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.