Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Kerala High Court
Radhamma vs Aravindakshan on 7 May, 2024
Author: T.R. Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 17TH VAISAKHA, 1946
RSA NO. 311 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2016 IN AS NO.134
OF 2014 OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2014 IN OS NO.74 OF 2011
OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS 1, 2, 4/DEFENDANTS 1, 2, 4:
1 RADHAMMA
D/O PUZHAMKARAVEETTIL KUNJUIKKAVU AMMA,
KARUKUTTY, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE/PO:680317,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
2 THULASI
D/O PUZHAMKARAVEETTIL KUNJUIKKAVU AMMA,
KARUKUTTY, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE/PO:680317,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
3 AJAY @ KUTTAN
S/O PUZHAMKARAVEETTIL THULASI,
KARUKUTTY, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE/PO:680317,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1-10, ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 5,
6/PLAINTIFFS 1, 3 TO 8, ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS 9 TO 11:
1 ARAVINDAKSHAN
S/O PUZHAMAKARAVEETTIL LAKSHMYKUTTYAMMA,
KARUKUTTY, KALLUR VAAKKUMMURI VILLAGE/PO:680317,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK
(PRESENT ADDRESS:NO:453, LORONG, KAS KAS 113/2,
TAMAN, TELUK INTAN, 36000, PERAK, MALAYSIA.
2 JAYENDRAN
S/O -DO-, PRESENT ADDRESS:NO.7,
JALAN, USJ 23/5B, 47620, SUBANG JAYA,
SELANGORE, MALAYSIA.
3 PADMINI
D/O -DO-, PRESENT ADDRESS:NO.3,
RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 2
JALAN, SS 1/22B 47300, PETALING JAYA,
SELANGORE, MALAYSIA
4 VENUGOPAL
S/O -DO-, PRESENT ADRESS:NO. 58,
JALAN, TERASEK, BANGSAR, BARU, 59100,
KUALALUMPUR, MALAYISA, MALAYSIA
5 BHASKARAN
-DO-, PRESENT ADDRESS:NO.5,
JALAN, SS 3/98, 47300, PETALLING JAYA,
SELANGORE, MALAYSIA.
6 SARALADEVI
D/O -DO-, NO:145G, LORONG, PANJANG,
75000, MELAKA, MALAYSIA
7 INDIRA DEVI
D/O -DO-, NO:73, JALAN, PIMPINGKIRI,
UKAY HEIGHTS, 68000, AMPANG,
SELANGORE, MALAYSIA
8 SARASWATHI NAIR
W/O PUZHANKARA SURENDRAN,
NO:17, JALAN, 3/3, BANDAR BARU,
SELAYANG -68100, BARU CAVES,
SELANGOR DE, MALAYSIA
9 USHA SURENDRAN
D/O -DO-, NO:17, JALAN, 3/3,
BANDAR BARU, SELAYANG 68100,
BARU CAVES, SELANGOR DE, MALAYSIA
10 MOHAN
S/O -DO-, NO.17, JALAN, 3/3,
BANDAR BARU, SELAYANG-68100,
BARU CAVES, SELANGOR DE, MALAYSIA
11 MAYA,
W/O.LATE MADHU AND D/O.GOVINDANKUTTY,
VADAVATTATH HOUSE, ANNALLOOR P.O. 680 731, THRISSUR
DISTRICT. *DIED LRs RECORDED
*IT IS RECORDED THAT R11 IS NO MORE AND HER LEGAL
HEIR IS ALREADY ON THE PARTY ARRAY AS R12 AS PER
ORDER DATED 21.10.2021 IN MEMO DATED 16.09.2021
RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 3
12 ATHIRA,
D/O.LATE MADHU,
VADAVATTATH HOUSE, ANNALLOOR P.O.-680 731, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
THE ADDRESS OF R12 IS INCORPORATED AS
PRESENT ADDRESS: C/O.PREMNATH,
VADAVATTATH HOUSE, SUBASH NAGAR,
TRAMWAY, CHALAKUDY 680 307, THISSURE DT.
AS PER ORDER DATED 21.10.2021 IN IA 4/2021
(RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10 REPRESENTED BY AGENT AND POA
MADHU, S/O.PUZHANKARA BHASKARAN,
AGED 48, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE/PO-680 731,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
VIDE EXT.A1 IN THE TRIAL COURT.
ADDL. R13 SAROJINI SASIDHARAN
AGED 57 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE, W/O.SASIDHARAN,
PUZHANKARA HOUSE, P.O.THAIKKOOTTAM, KADUKUTTY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
*ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.13 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 21.10.2021 IN IA 1/2021
BY ADVS.
R1 TO R10 BY SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
ADDL.R13 BY SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI GIRISH KUMAR V.C
SRI V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.12.2023, THE COURT ON 7.5.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 4
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
R.S.A. No.311 of 2017
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The plaint schedule properties belonged to one Lakshmikutty Amma, the plaintiffs' mother, under Sale Deed No.1201/1953 of SRO, Chalakkudy. The plaintiffs and their mother had migrated to Malaysia. At the time of going, it is stated that Lakshmikutty Amma had entrusted the plaint schedule properties with the mother of defendants 1 & 2, Kunjikkavamma, who is the sister of Lakshmikutty Amma's mother. It is stated that after the death of Kunjikkavamma, defendants 1 & 2 were looking after the properties. Lakshmikutty Amma died on 26.10.2004. After the death of Lakshmikutty Amma, the plaintiffs as legal heirs, had requested the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule property. When the defendants refused, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title with mesne profits.
2. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the plaint schedule property had never been entrusted with Kunjikkavamma. According to the defendants, Kunjikkavamma and one Prabhakara Menon trespassed into the plaint schedule properties RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 5 on 01.01.1962, constructed a house therein, and started residing in the building from 24.12.1962. It is stated that the construction was completed in the year 1965. After the death of Kunjikkavamma, defendants 1 & 2 and Prabhakara Menon modified the building by constructing a kitchen and cattle shed in 1975 and 1980. It is stated that a compound wall was constructed in the year 1992. The defendants stated that they never obtained permission from the plaintiffs or Lakshmikutty Amma and that Lakshmikutty Amma had never obstructed the construction of the residential building in the plaint schedule property, though she knew about the construction. It is stated that the defendants have been taking the usufructs of the property and have been paying the tax and electricity charges. The defendants claimed uninterrupted, hostile, continuous, and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property, to the knowledge of Lakshmikutty Amma, and hence contended that they have perfected their title by adverse possession.
3. On the pleadings, the trial court raised issues regarding adverse possession and the entitlement of the plaintiffs for recovery of possession and mesne profits. On the side of the plaintiffs, their power of attorney holder was examined as PW1, and documents Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. Exts.A1 and A1(a) are the powers of RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 6 attorney executed by the plaintiffs. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of Sale Deed No.1201/1953. Ext.A3 is the S.S.L.C. Book of the 2 nd plaintiff. Ext.A4 is the Transfer Certificate issued by St.Alberts College to the 1st plaintiff. Ext.A5 is the registered power of attorney No.38/1972 executed by Lakshmikutty Amma in favour of Narayana Menon, the husband of the 1st defendant. Ext.A6 is the letter issued by the daughter of the 2nd defendant to the 1st plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, DWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.B1 to B89 were marked. DW1 is the 1 st defendant, DW2 is the Village Officer of the concerned Village, DW3 is the Secretary of the concerned Panchayat, DW4 is the Advocate Commissioner who filed Ext.C1 commission report, DW5 is the Civil Engineer, who assisted DW4 in preparing the valuation of the building, DW6 is the neighbouring property owner and DW7 is an agricultural labourer engaged for work in the plaint schedule property. Exts.B1 to B24 are land tax receipts issued in favour of the 1st defendant and Prabhakara Menon. Exts.B25 to B60 are building tax receipts from Kadukutty Panchayat. Exts.B61 to B65 are demand notices issued from the Panchayat. Ext.B66 is the death certificate of Prabhakara Menon. The rest of the documents are also documents to show the possession of the defendants over the property. The trial court decreed the suit and RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 7 the 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, defendants 1 to 4 have filed this second appeal.
4. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
"In the absence of evidence regarding entrustment, is it not a case wherein the right of the plaintiff to have possession of the property has been lost under Section 27 of the Limitation Act."
5. Heard Sri.K.G.Balasubramanian, on behalf of the appellants, and Sri.P.B.Krishnan, on behalf of the respondents.
6. The suit has been filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title and is not a suit for mandatory injunction. As such, the details of entrustment for determining the period of limitation, are not relevant. The questions to be answered are regarding the title of the plaintiffs and their right to get possession. While considering their right to get possession, it would become relevant whether the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession. That alone has been the issue framed in the suit and answered by the trial court and the 1st appellate court.
7. Before this Court, the main argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiffs are not Indian citizens RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 8 and their title has eclipsed on the coming into force of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA for short). It is contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to hold properties. Another contention taken is that given the principles laid down in the decision in Sarala V. Little Flower Mission [2004 KHC 229], the possession of the defendants ought to be found to be adverse and the suit dismissed.
8. The property was acquired by Lakshmikutty Amma as per Ext.A2 document, which is of the year 1953. The defendants do not dispute the title of Lakshmikutty Amma. Their specific contention is that Kunjikkavamma and Prabhakara Menon had trespassed into the property in the year 1962. It is hence contended that their possession is adverse to that of the true owner. Admittedly, Lakshmikutty Amma and Kunjikkavamma belong to the same Tarwad. The plaintiffs have produced Ext.A5, which is a registered power of attorney executed by Lakshmikutty Amma in favour of Narayana Menon, who is the husband of the 1 st defendant and the son-in-law of Kunjukkavamma. It is relevant to note that the person appointed as power of attorney under Ext.A5 was also the guardian of the 3rd plaintiff, as evidenced by Ext.A3 S.S.L.C. Book issued to the 3rd plaintiff. Ext.A4 Transfer Certificate issued from the RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 9 St.Albert's College also shows the relationship between the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the defendants and Sri.Narayana Menon, who is the power holder. If Narayana Menon's wife had trespassed into the property in 1962, there was no purpose for the execution of a power of attorney in favour of Narayana Menon in the year 1972. Ext.A5 power of attorney is relating to the individual and joint properties of Lakshmikutty Amma and her husband Krishnankutty Menon. The 1 st defendant expressed total ignorance about the execution of Ext.A5 registered power of attorney in favour of her husband. The plaintiffs contend that the property had been entrusted to Kunjikkavamma and after her death through a registered power of attorney, the properties had been entrusted to the son-in-law of Kunjikkavamma, Sri.Narayana Menon and as such the possession is only permissive and will never qualify as an adverse possession with any hostile animus. The trial court also considered the admission of the defendants that Lakshmikutty Amma and her husband who were residing in Malaysia were occasionally coming to the plaint schedule property and residing there during their stay in India, as a factor that goes against the claim of adverse possession. The trial court found that Ext.A2 document would show that Lakshmikutty Amma had obtained the landed property along RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 10 with the structures therein and that the report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that the building is an old one having a "thattumpuram" and "naalukettu". The court also took into consideration the fact that the defendants did not have any counterclaim regarding the ownership of the building and there was nothing in evidence to show that the building on the property was constructed by the defendants or Kunjikkavamma. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors. [AIR 2009 SC 103], Anumayya and Another V. Secretary to Government of Karnataka Revenue Department [2010 KHC 6180] and Ramlal and Another V. Phagua and Others [2006 KHC 17], the trial court decreed the suit and held that the defendants have failed to prove the requirements of adverse possession.
9. The 1st appellate court re-examined the evidence and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. The 1st appellate court relied on the decision in Karnataka Board of Wakf V. Government of India [2004 KHC 1809], L.N.Ashwathama and Another V. P.Prakash [2009 KHC 5996] and the judgment in Hemaji (supra) to support the conclusions.
10. The 1st appellate court rightly found that since the RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 11 defendants admitted the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and set up a claim of adverse possession, it is for the defendants to prove the said claim. The court found that the contention of the defendants that they had constructed the house in the property cannot be accepted in the absence of evidence either documentary or oral regarding the construction of the house. The 1 st appellate court also took into account the fact that Lakshmikutty Amma was staying in the plaint schedule property when she visited the native place. Regarding Ext.A5 document executed by Lakshmikutty Amma and Krishnanakutty Menon appointing the husband of DW1 as power of attorney, the Court noticed that DW1 has given evasive answers. She even went to the extent of saying that for the past more than 3 years, she has not seen her husband. She also says that she did not enquire with her husband about the power of attorney. The court has found that in view of the execution of the power of attorney in the year 1972, it cannot be held that there was any hostile animus for the defendants from 01.01.1962, which is the date claimed by the defendants as the date of trespass. The appellate court found that the contention of the plaintiffs that the properties were entrusted with Kunjikkavamma and later with the husband of DW1 as power holder is more probable. The trial RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 12 court as well as the appellate court have considered the evidence in detail and arrived at a finding regarding adverse possession. I do not find any reason to upset the said findings in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The findings cannot be said to be perverse and the trial court as well as the appellate court have considered the entire evidence on record from the correct perspective. The contention of the defendants regarding adverse possession hence cannot be sustained.
11. The only other question that has been raised for the first time in the second appeal is the question of whether the plaintiffs can hold properties in view of the provisions of the FERA. The counsel for the appellants relied on the decision in Asha John Divianathan V. Vikram Malhotra and Others [2011 KHC 6112]. The contention that the title of the plaintiffs has eclipsed, is not legally correct and is not supported by the judgment referred to by the counsel for the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the said judgment referred to Section 31 of the FERA, which only says about restrictions in holding immovable property in India. The court further observed that there was a requirement for a disclosure of the properties held in India by a person who is not a citizen of India. However, the judgment does not say that the title of the person who RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 13 is not a citizen of India is lost by the operation of any of the provisions of the FERA. The counsel for the respondents, in reply to the above contention, pointed out the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (the FEMA for short), which permits persons who are not citizens of India to hold properties, if the property had been acquired, held, or owned by such person when he was a resident in India or inherited from a person who was a resident in India. On a reading of the provisions of the FERA and the FEMA, I do not find an absolute bar for holding a property particularly when the property had been acquired before leaving India. The contention raised will not in any manner support the contention of the defendants that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. No grounds are made out to warrant interference.
The second appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI JUDGE Pn RSA NO. 311 OF 2017 14 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-I: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH ANNEXURE-II: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ANNEXURE-IV: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKKUDY