K.Moosa
Haji's Widow, Smt. Kanndiyil Ayissu & Ors Vs. Executive Officer, Sree Lakshmi
Narasimha Temple [1996] INSC 633 (1 May 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
Sujata V. Manohar
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
THE
1ST DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present:
Hon'ble
Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar K.Sukumaran, Sr.Adv.,
K.M.K.Nair, Adv, with him for the appellants.
T.L.V.
Iyer, Sr. Adv., Y.P. Dhingra, Baldev Satija, S.S.Khanduja, Advs. with him for
the Respondent
O R D E
R
The
following Order of the Court was delivered:
This
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated
March 20, 1995 made in S.A. No 995/89. The admitted position is that the
appellants' predecessor one Mr. Vellu had entered into an agreement with the
respondent Devaswam for construction of residential premises on an extent of
3-1/2 cents of land under Ex.A-1 dated November 25, 1921. The extent is of 5 x 7 six ft. Koles
with a boundary specified thereunder. The building constructed on this land has
Municipal No.177. Thereafter it would appear that the appellant had extended
their possession to 10-3/10 cents and 13-1/5 cents at different times. The
respondent has filed the suit for eviction of the appellants and possession
thereof. The trial Court and the appellate Court have dismissed the suit and
the appeal.
But in
the second appeal, the High Court declared that the permission granted by the
Executive Officer, Ex.B-8 does not confer any title. The appellants claim
cannot extend beyond what has been granted to her predecessor in interest, Ex.A-
1.
Accordingly,
it directed the trial Court to appoint a Commissioner to identify the land
covered under Ex.A-1, demarcate the same and that rest of the land should be
taken possession of.
It is
contended by Shri Sukumaran, Counsel for the appellant that the High Court has
committed error in directing to take possession of 10-3/10 cents since the
appellants had purchased it under the Land Reforms Act and, therefore, the
decree to that extent is not correct in law.
When
we asked Mr. TLV Iyer, the counsel for the respondent, he stated that they have
specifically excluded to the above extent and would pursue the remedy as
provided under the Land Reforms Act. In that view, it is not necessary to go
into the question as the extent of 10-3/10 cents of the land. The respondents
are, therefore, entitled to recover the balance area admeasuring 13-1/5 cents.
It is
then contended that the trial Court and the appellate Court after due
consideration of evidence found that house was existing in the land. The
boundary prevails over the extend and that, therefore, the appellants cannot be
ejected from the land on which the house was erected. We find no force in the
contention. When we pointedly asked the counsel to point out the source for the
right, the appellant fell upon Ex.B-8, rent receipt, as source of title. The
appellant does not get any legal title based on it since Ex. B-8 is only a rent
receipt which does not confer any title. There is no other document evidencing
the title of the land on which the building came to be constructed in excess of
3-1/2 cents and the purchase certificate which covers 10-3/10 cents. The
appellants cannot have any right more than what was conferred under Ex.A-1
which specifically mentions 3-1/2 cents and the purchase certificate which
covers 10-3/10 cents including 3- 1/2 cents. Under those circumstances, the
decree of the High Court does not warrant interference, except for the
exclusion of total area of 10-3/10 cents of land covered by the purchase
certificate from the decree.
The
appeal is dismissed with the above modification.
No
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
