Supreme Court Dismisses Appellant in Kerala Land Reforms Act Case on Interpretation of Kuzhikanam and Kudiyiruppu. Transfer of Land Without Standing Fruit-Bearing Trees and Without Residential Building Does Not Confer Tenant Status Under Sections 2(28) and 2(26) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

Case Note & Summary

This civil appeal by special leave arose from a suit for redemption of property in Quilon, Kerala. The original plaintiff had executed an otti kuzhikanam deed in 1921 in favour of the original defendant. The deed sold a building for 350 fanams and transferred possessory rights for 12 years in kuzhikanam right with liberty to plant coconut trees, while expressly reserving to the plaintiff the right to enjoy fruit-bearing trees then standing on the property. It provided for surrender after 12 years upon payment of 350 fanams and compensation for coconut trees planted. The plaintiff instituted a suit for redemption. During pendency, both original parties died and legal representatives were substituted. The Principal District Munsif, Quilon, decreed the suit on May 31, 1951. The District Court of Quilon affirmed. The defendant's legal representative, the appellant, filed a second appeal before the High Court of Kerala. While that appeal was pending, the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 came into force, and the appellant claimed fixity of tenure as a kuzhikanamdar or holder of kudiyiruppu under that Act's definitions. The High Court rejected those contentions and dismissed the appeal on July 25, 1961. The appellant then obtained special leave from the Supreme Court. During pendency of this appeal, the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 replaced the 1960 Act. The appellant accordingly claimed tenant status under Section 2(57)(d) read with Section 2(28) as kuzhikanamdar, or under Section 2(57)(h) read with Section 2(26) as holder of kudiyiruppu. He did not press an earlier claim of kudikidappukaran. The core questions were whether the 1921 deed created kuzhikanam rights as defined in Section 2(28) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and whether the appellant held a kudiyiruppu under Section 2(26). Section 13 grants fixity of tenure to every tenant, and Section 2(57) includes kuzhikanamdar and holder of kudiyiruppu as tenants. The appellant argued that the deed, styled otti kuzhikanam deed, transferred land for 12 years for planting coconut trees and thereby constituted kuzhikanam. He contended that the words with the fruit-bearing trees, if any, standing thereon at the time of the transfer, for the enjoyment of those trees were not essential parts of the definition in Section 2(28). Alternatively, he claimed the building and land formed a kudiyiruppu. The respondent plaintiff's position, as reflected in the court's reasoning, was that the deed expressly reserved fruit-bearing trees to the grantor and did not transfer them, thus failing the statutory definition, and there was no residential building or necessity to establish kudiyiruppu. The Supreme Court examined the definition of kuzhikanam in Section 2(28). It held that the definition was both inclusive and exhaustive, meaning that unless context required otherwise, kuzhikanam had only that meaning. The definition requires a transfer of garden lands or other lands, with fruit-bearing trees, if any, standing thereon at the time of transfer, for enjoyment of those trees, and for the purpose of planting such fruit-bearing trees. It excludes a usufructuary mortgage under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but the plaintiff did not assert a usufructuary mortgage. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the transfer of land for planting trees alone sufficed. It held that a transfer of land without fruit-bearing trees then standing and without the right to enjoy those trees is not kuzhikanam under the definition. The phrase if any means if there are fruit-bearing trees on the land at transfer, those trees must also be transferred for the transferee's enjoyment. Since the 1921 deed expressly reserved the fruit-bearing trees to the plaintiff and did not transfer them, it did not create kuzhikanam rights. On kudiyiruppu, the court examined Section 2(26), which defines kudiyiruppu as a holding or part of a holding consisting of the site of any residential building, sites of other appurtenant buildings, other lands necessary for convenient enjoyment of the residential building, and easements attached, but excludes kudikidappu. There was no material on record to show the building was residential, and it did not appear that the land was necessary for convenient enjoyment. Therefore the appellant was not holder of kudiyiruppu. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree for redemption. There was no order as to costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed; decree for redemption upheld; no order as to costs. Appellant was not a tenant under Section 2(57) because neither kuzhikanamdar nor holder of kudiyiruppu.

Law Points