Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
K.MOOSA HAJI’S WIDOW, SMT. KANNDIYIL AYISSU & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA TEMPLE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.