1996 (9) TMI 600 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the benefit of Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
2. Applicability of the non-obstante clause in Section 4A.
3. Continuous possession requirement for deemed tenancy under Section 4A.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to the benefit of Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act:
The appellants, erstwhile mortgagees in possession, contended they were entitled to the benefit of Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which confers the status of deemed tenancy on mortgagees in possession. Despite a decree for redemption becoming final, they argued that during execution proceedings, their possession should not be disturbed under Section 4A. However, the Executing Court, Appellate Court, and Revisional Court rejected this contention.

2. Applicability of the non-obstante clause in Section 4A:
Section 4A operates notwithstanding any judgment, decree, or order of any court against the mortgagee in possession if certain conditions are met. The appellants argued that the non-obstante clause should protect their possession. However, the court clarified that this clause would only apply if the appellants were mortgagees in possession on 1.1.1970. Since the mortgage amount was deposited on 14th March 1969, their status as mortgagees in possession ended, and they became judgment debtors in illegal possession. Thus, the non-obstante clause did not assist the appellants.

3. Continuous possession requirement for deemed tenancy under Section 4A:
For Section 4A to apply, the mortgagee must be in possession on 1.1.1970 and must have held the land continuously for not less than fifty years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. The appellants failed to meet this requirement as their possession as mortgagees ended on 14th March 1969, and they were in unlawful possession for almost nine months before 1.1.1970. The court emphasized that the words "immediately preceding the commencement" must be given their ordinary and full meaning, indicating continuous possession from 31st December 1919 to 31st December 1969.

Conclusion:
The appellants did not satisfy the conditions for the applicability of Section 4A, as they were not mortgagees in possession on 1.1.1970 and did not have continuous possession for fifty years immediately preceding this date. Consequently, the High Court and lower courts were justified in denying the benefit of Section 4A to the appellants. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.