P.K. Parvathy vs Tata Tea Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 9441 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                       RSA NO. 93 OF 2010
  AGAINST THE ORDER JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 226/1995 OF
                   MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM
     AGAOMST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN           AS 59/2004 OF
     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II OF THODUPUZHA


APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

            P.K. PARVATHY, D/O PALIAN,M.P.IX/55, SEVEN VALLEY
            LINE, OLD MUNNAR, K.D.H.VILLAGE.
            BY ADVS.
            SMT.ANEY PAUL
            SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

            TATA TEA LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
            THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED
            OFFICE AT BISHOP LEFROY ROAD,CALCUTTA AND
            REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUNNAR,REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
            GENERAL MANAGER (CORPORATE AFFAIRS) SRI.DAMU,
            MUNNAR P.O, K.D.H VILLAGE.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
            SRI.BINU MATHEW
            SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
            SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
            SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
            SRI.TOM THOMAS KAKKUZHIYIL


     THIS    REGULAR   SECOND     APPEAL     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   25.08.2022,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                     Sathish Ninan, J.
             ==============================
                   R.S.A No.93 of 2010
               ==========================
         Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022

                             JUDGMENT

The concurrent decree in a suit for declaration of

title, recovery of possession and injunction, is under

challenge in this Regular Second Appeal by the

defendant.

2. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 30

cents, situated in Survey No.61/6 of KDH village.

According to the plaintiff, a larger extent of property

including the plaint schedule property originally

belonged to Kannan Devan Hills Producing Company Ltd. It

was transferred to the plaintiff Company as per Ext A1

Transfer Deed dated 31.12.1976. Alleging trespass by the

defendant, the suit has been filed.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying

the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule

property. It was contended that the property in question

is a purampoke land. Yet another plea was urged that

the defendant has perfected title over the property by

adverse possession and limitation.

4. The trial court negatived all the three

contentions. It was found that the plaintiff has title

over the plaint schedule property, that the property

has been identified by the Commissioner as per Exts C1

and C2 Reports and C1(a) Plan. On the plea of adverse

possession, the evidence was discussed in extenso and

the claim was negatived. The defendant was

unsuccessful in his appeal before the first appellate

court.

5. Heard Smt.Aney Paul, learned counsel on behalf

of the appellant and Sri.Mathews K. Uthuppachan,

learned counsel for the respondent on the following

Substantial Questions of Law:

(i) Is the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit

barred under Section 14 of the Kannan Devan

Hills(Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971?

(ii) Is the identification of the plaint schedule property

correct?

6. The learned counsel for the appellant urged

that, the suit is not maintainable in the light of the

express bar under Section 14 of the Kannan Devan Hills

(Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (herein after referred

to as "the Act". Section 14 of the Act reads thus:

"Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is, by or under this Act, required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Government, the Land Board, the Collector or any other officer."

7. On a plain rearing of the Section it admits of

no doubt that, the bar of jurisdiction is only with

respect to the matters which are required under the Act

to be settled by the Government, Land Board or other

officer. The present suit on title, in respect of the

property of the plaintiff alleged to have been

trespassed upon by the defendant, will not fall within

the scope of Section 14 referred to above. The Civil

Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the

suit. It is held accordingly.

8. Though the learned counsel for the appellant

would contend that, the land in question is a purampoke

land and that the plaintiff does not have title over

the same, a reading of the written statement reveals

that there is no specific contention in the said

regard. However, it is contended that consequent on the

vesting under the Act, the lands were vested in the

Government, and that there is no evidence that the

plaint schedule property was restored back to the

plaintiff or its predecessor.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent took me

through Exts A3 and A5 to show that, from out of the

property in Survey No.61/6-1 an extent of 93.74 Acres

originally vested with the Government by virtue of the

Act, but that therefrom, an extent of 88.74 Acres were

restored to the Company. Ext A3 indicates that only an

extent of 5 Acres were retained by the Government. The

property was identified by a Commissioner with the

assistance of a Surveyor. The Surveyor located the

properties based on revenue records. No purampoke was

identified within the property located. PW1 has deposed

that the land vested with the Government is situated

far away from the plaint schedule property. The trial

court has considered the evidence regarding

identification and has found that the identification

done by the Commissioner is proper. No material could

be brought to the notice of this Court to show

otherwise. It could only be concluded that plaint

schedule property has been properly identified and that

the plaintiff has title over the plaint schedule

property.

10. Though the finding on the plea of adverse

possession is challenged in the memorandum of appeal,

no contention in the said regard was urged. Be that as

it may, the courts below have concurrently appreciated

the oral evidence and the circumstances involved and

found that the plea of adverse possession is baseless.

The Courts appreciated the fact that the defendant's

parents were employees of the plaintiff Company. The

finding on adverse possession is a pure finding of

fact. The challenge against the same is not liable to

be entertained.

11. On the above discussions it could only be

concluded that there is no merit in the Appeal and the

same is only to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge

vdv