PETITIONER:
EAPAN THOMAS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SYED MOHAMMED KUNJU MOHAMMED KUNJU
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1992
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 1553 1992 SCR (2) 307
1992 SCC (2) 721 JT 1992 (2) 374
1992 SCALE (1)740
ACT:
Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970-Section 20-
Debt Relief Petition under-Requirement for maintainability-
Object of Legislation-Inter-pretation beneficial to
peasantry to be accepted-Cost of Improvements and mesne
profits whether payable.
HEADNOTE:
In execution of a money decree, a court-sale took
place. Three pieces of agricultural land of the judgment-
debtor-respondent were put to auction. The decree-holder-
appellant purchased the same.
Item Nos.1 and 2 of the auctioned property remained in
possession of the respondent, but item no. 3 went into the
possession of the appellant.
The respondent approached the executing court filing a
petition u/s. 20 of the Kerala Agriculturists Act, 1970, for
retrieval of the entire property on the basis that he had
continued to be in possession of a part of it.
The appellant contested the Debt Relief Petition
contending that as the respondent was not in possession of
the entire property, Section 20 of the Act was inapplicable
and that in case it was then before possession of property,
item no. 3 could be asked to be given, cost of improvements
had to be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 20.
All the courts below decided against the appellant.
This appeal by special leave was confined to a claim to
property Item No. 3 of the Debt Relief Petition.
Dismissing the appeal of the decree-holder, this Court,
HELD : 1.01. The Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act
is a local legislation and had come to give some succour to
the indebted agriculturists. The conditions which led to
the passing of such legislation
308
presumably were well known to the Kerala State Legislature
and the pulse of it was felt by the High Court Kerala in its
Interpretive role. [309D]
1.02. The sale conceived of under Section 20 is one and
indivisible and when it is required to be set aside only a
portion of the property sold need be in possession of the
judgment-debtor to make him eligible to maintain the Debt
Relief Petition. [309E]
1.03. An interpretation, beneficial as it is to the
indebted peasantry is approved. The courts below as well as
the High Court let the respondent maintain his Debt Relief
Petition. Such a course is concurred with. Sequally
property item no. 3 has also to be retrieved from the hands
of the appellant. [309F]
1.04. In the interests of justice, neither is the
appellant held entitled to any cost of improvements nor
would he be liable for payment of any mesne profits for the
preceding three years. [310A-B]
Syed Mohammed Beevi Amma v. Mathai Devasia, 1960 KLT
163; Ramasuppa Iyer v. Daveed Christudas, 1963 KLT 886,
approved.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2578 of
1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9th June, 1980 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernaculam in C.R.P. No. 3168 of
1978.
S. Padmanabhan and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
K.M.K. Nair for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered:
The appeal by special leave is confined to a claim to
property Item No. 3 of the Debt Relief Petition, which
succeeded in th courts below.
In execution of a money decree a court-sale took place
in which three pieces of agricultural land of the judgment-
debtor, respondent herein, was put to auction and purchased
by the decree-holder, the appellant herein. On the facts
found by the courts below item Nos. 1 and 2 of the auctioned
property remained in possession of the respondent, but item
No. 3 went into the possession of the appellant. The
respondent taking the aid of
309
Section 20 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act,
1970, approached the executing court for retrieval of the
entire property on the basis that he had continued to be in
possession of atleast a part of it, i.e., two survey numbers
as itemized. The Debt Relief Petition was contested by the
appellant herein on the ground that since the judgment-
debtor-respondent was not in possession of the entire
property, Section 20 of the aforesaid Act was inapplicable
and in case it was then before possession of property item
No. 3 could be asked to be given cost of improvements had to
be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 20, which the
appellant assessed at Rs. 2,000. All the courts below
inclusive of the High Court have gone against the appellant
and the dispute herein, as said before, is confined to
property item No. 3.
The above-named Act is a local legislation and had come
to give some succour to the indebted agriculturists. The
conditions which led to the passing of such legislation
presumably were well known to the Kerala State Legislature
and the pulse of it was felt by the High Court of Kerala in
its interpretive role. There are two decisions of that
Court in support of the claim of the respondent. The first
one is by a Division Bench, i.e., 1960 KLT 163 titled Syed
Mohammed Beevi Amma v. Mathai Devasia followed by a single
bench in 1963 KLT 886 titled Ramasuppa Iyer v. Daveed
Christudas (even though passed on the earlier statute)
wherein it has been held that the sale conceived of under
Section 20 is one and indivisible and when it is required to
be set aside only a portion of the property sold need be in
possession of the judgment-debtor to make him eligible to
maintain the Debt Relief Petition. These two decisions have
governed the field without any discordant note in that
State. We will rather frown on setting aside such an
interpretation, beneficial as it is to the indebted
peasantry. The courts below as well as the High Court
followed these decisions in letting the respondent maintain
his Debt Relief petition. We concur with such a course.
Sequally property item No. 3 has also to be retrieved from
the hands of the appellant. We order accordingly
maintaining the judgment and orders of the courts below.
The appellant laid a claim of Rs. 2,000 for
improvements wayback in the year 1970. A period of over 20
years has passed by. It would be fair to presume that the
appellant has derived the fruits of the improvements in
these past years. It would also be fair correspondingly to
assume that on the maintenance of the orders of the courts
below he would be liable to
310
pay mesne profits for the preceding three years on having
remained in possession of the property item No. 3. We
square these two claims in the interests of justice and
close the matter. Neither is the appellant held entitled to
any cost of improvements nor would he be liable for payment
of any mesne profits for the preceding three years. There
would correspondingly be a duty on the respondent.
For the aforesaid reasons this appeal fails and is
hereby dismissed but added with the above directions and
without any order as to costs.
V.P.R. Appeal dismissed.
311