Skip to content


Puthanpurayil Pullotichi Mariyam Vs. Valia Peedikavil Tharamballi Moosa and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.A. No. 263 of 1978-F
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Ker87
ActsKerala Land Reforms Act, 1976 - Sections 6C
AppellantPuthanpurayil Pullotichi Mariyam
RespondentValia Peedikavil Tharamballi Moosa and anr.
Appellant Advocate A. Achuthan Nambair,; T.P.K. Nambiar,; P.G. Rajagopalan
Respondent Advocate P.P. Ananthanarayana Iyer and; P.R. Raman, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 147 (1)(b)(i) [as amended in 1994]; [v.k. bali, cj, m.ramachandran & s. sirijagan, jj] third party risk gratuitous passengers - liability of insurance company held, gratuitous passengers in transport vehicles, including a motor cycle, can have coverage only when a comprehensive policy or extended policy as might be possible to be issued has been availed of by the owner of the vehicle. only in such cases, the insurance company is required to compensate. payment of premium alone can cast a corresponding duty on the insurer for rendering coverage on any such group, when they are not required to be mandatorily brought under insurance protection. [oriental insurance co. ltd. v ajaykumar, 1992 (2) ker lt 886 (f.b) is no..........she admits the plaintiffs' title to the suit property. her only defence is that she had an oral lease of the property from a previous karnavan, sooppy, and the oral lease was renewed as per ext. a-1 dated 10-7-1964 and she is in possession of the property as a tenant under the plaintiffs' tavazhi. both the courts below have concurrently found against the oral lease alleged. ext. a-1 purports to be a renewal of the prior oral lease. it is granted by anthraman, a karnavan of plaintiffs' tavazhi. he was none other than the husband of the first defendant. the appellate court has also found that ext. a-1 was never intended to be acted upon. on these findings the suit was decreed and the decision of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court2. learned counsel.....
Judgment:

P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.

1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of possession of an item of property on the strength of the plaintiffs' title. The plaintiffs are the karnavan and the senior ananthiravan of a Mappila Marumakkathayam tavazhi tarwad. The suit is contested by the first defendant. She admits the plaintiffs' title to the suit property. Her only defence is that she had an oral lease of the property from a previous karnavan, Sooppy, and the oral lease was renewed as per Ext. A-1 dated 10-7-1964 and she is in possession of the property as a tenant under the plaintiffs' tavazhi. Both the courts below have concurrently found against the oral lease alleged. Ext. A-1 purports to be a renewal of the prior oral lease. It is granted by Anthraman, a Karnavan of plaintiffs' tavazhi. He was none other than the husband of the first defendant. The appellate court has also found that Ext. A-1 was never intended to be acted upon. On these findings the suit was decreed and the decision of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that even on the finding of the courts below that the oral lease set up has not been proved, the first defendant is entitled to protection under Section 6-C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as amended by Act 27 of 1979. Section 6-C introduced by Section 3 of the Amendment Act is extracted below:--

'6C. Certain lessees who have made substantial improvements, etc., to be deemed tenants.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 74, or in any contract, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, any person in occupation at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, of the land of another person on the basis of a lease deed executed after the 1st day of April 1964, shall be deemed to be a tenant if --

(a) he (including any member of his family) did not own or hold land in excess of four acres in extent on the date of execution of the lease deed; and

(b) he or any member of his family has made substantial improvements on the land.'

For the applicability of Section 6-C it must be shown that the person claiming tenancy is in occupation of the land of another person at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, on the basis of a lease deed executed after the 1st day of April, 1964. In the present case the first defendant claims to be in possession on the basis of an oral lease. According to her she got possession of the property under an oral lease of the year 1098 M. E. Her occupation therefore is not on the basis of a lease deed executed after the first day of April, 1964. Section 6-C cannot therefore have any application to the present case. That apart, the lower appellate court has found that Ext. A-1 was not intended to be acted upon. I do not see any merit in the Second Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //