Judgment S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. (1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) THE unsuccessful appellants herein have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High court of Kerala dated 6/08/1986 passed in E.S.A. (Execution Second Appeal) No. 15 of 1979 whereby the High court dismissed the said appeal filed by the appellants. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are necessary to be recapitulated and they are as follows : Othayoth Gopalan Nambiar (since dead) and Othayoth Lekshmy Amma (who is appellant 1 herein) filed an Execution Application No. , 556 of 1970 in Original Suit No. 817 of 1943 in the court of the Munsiff of Badagara under S. 13-B of the Land Reforms Act, as amended by the Amending Act 35 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restoration of possession of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the application, which were sold in court auction for arrears of rent in pursuance of the decree made in O.S. No. 817 of 1943. It seems that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Munsiff, Othayoth Gopalan Nambiar died and thereafter appellant 1S son claiming to be the kamavan of the tavazhi got himself impleaded as petitioner 3 in the said execution application, who is figuring as appellant 2 herein. (3) IN order to decide the question that arise for consideration, certain salient and material facts may be recapitulated. The suit, O.S. No. 817 of 1943 was filed for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 815.00 for the Malayalam years 1116 to 1118, corresponding to English era 1941 to 1943. There were 11 defendants to whom Othayoth Gopalan Nambiar and appellant 1 were the defendants 2 and 3. A preliminary decree was passed on 26/05/1944 followed by the final decree on November 29, 1944. The decree-holder assigned the decree to another member of his family, who in turn assigned it to one Kunhikannan. The rights of Kunhikannan devolved on respondents 2 to 4 in the execution application who are respondents 4 to 6 in this appeal and who brought the property to sale. The sale took place on 26/11/1962. The decree-holder assigned the decree to another member of his family, who in turn assigned it to one Kunhikannan. The rights of Kunhikannan devolved on respondents 2 to 4 in the execution application who are respondents 4 to 6 in this appeal and who brought the property to sale. The sale took place on 26/11/1962. One Thekkjayil Kanaran who was respondent 1 in the execution application, i.e. respondent 3 herein purchased the property in the court auction held on 26/11/1962, which sale was confirmed on 14/08/1964 and consequently obtained delivery of the disputed scheduled property extending to 8.70 acres of double crop wet land through court on 9/01/1965 from the possession of the appellants. Ex. C-3 is the delivery account and report submitted by the Amin. The remaining extent of the property Was in the possession of the sub-tenants in respect of which there was resistance with which we are not concerned here. (4) AFTER the delivery had been effected, Gopalan Nambiar and appellant 1 herein trespassed into the suit property. Therefore, the court auction purchaser filed 0.S. No. 6 of 1966 in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Badagara for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed as per the judgment Ex. B-16 dated 27/07/1966. Ex. B-15 is the decree. Ex. B-49 dated 25/08/1966 and Ex. B-50 dated 22/08/1966 are the respective certified copies of the delivery account submitted by the Amin and the delivery warrant issued to Amin in O.S. No. 6 of 1966. The auction purchaser, i.e. respondent 3 in this appeal assigned portions of the property under sale deeds Exs. A-2 and A-3 dated 5/12/1966 to respondents 5 and 6 in the execution application, who are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal. It is slated that while respondent 1 is stranger, respondent 2 is none other than the wife of respondent 4. As we have pointed out earlier, respondent 4 is among the three respondents on whom the rights of Kunhikannan devolved. (5) WHILE it is so, Act 9 of 1967 came into force. So Gopalan Nambiar and appellant 1 filed Execution Application No. 1711 of 1967 for restoration of possession under the said amended Act after making the necessary deposit. While this E.A. was pending, Act 35 of 1969 came into force (Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act) repcaling Act 9 of 1967. So Gopalan Nambiar and appellant 1 filed Execution Application No. 1711 of 1967 for restoration of possession under the said amended Act after making the necessary deposit. While this E.A. was pending, Act 35 of 1969 came into force (Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act) repcaling Act 9 of 1967. So the appellants filed E.A. No. 556 of 1970 under S. 13-B of the Act for restoration of possessions with a prayer that earlier deposit made under Act 9 of 1967 be treated as a deposit under Act 35 of 1969 and also undertook to pay the balance, if any, as would be found by the court. Respondent 3 (court auction purchaser) and his assignees respondent 1 and 2 contended that the appellants have no interest in the properties and the delivery of the properly had already been taken. The appellants attacked the validity of the Exs. A-2 and Aiar trespassed into the properties and he was ejected by recourse to a suit and thereafter the properties were assigned to respondents 1 and 2 for proper consideration and bona tides and they are in possession of the properties on the strength of the said sale deeds. The trail courteld that the appellants were the tenants of the properties when they were dispossessed and the deposit made by the appellants was sufficient and respondents 1 and 2 are not bona tide purchasers for consideration. On the said finding it allowed E.A. No. 556 of 1970 and set aside the sale. (6) AGGRIEVED by the order of the trial court, respondents 1 and 2 filed A.S. No. 49 of 1974 before the Sub-Court, Badagara, which for deciding the appeal posed the following four points for its consideration, namely: 1. Are the petitioners entitled to maintain the application? 2. Is the deposit sufficient? 3. Are the appellants bona tide purchasers for consideration? 4. Whether the court sale is liable to be set aside and the restoration of possession claimed allowable? If so, are the petitioners liable to pay anything by way of value of improvements? The learned Judge answered the first point , "THAT the petitioners are competent to maintain the application," and the second point holding ".... that the deposit when it was made is sufficient. If so, are the petitioners liable to pay anything by way of value of improvements? The learned Judge answered the first point , "THAT the petitioners are competent to maintain the application," and the second point holding ".... that the deposit when it was made is sufficient. However the interest accrued till dale of the present application will he g directed to be deposited in case the petitioners are found entitled to restoration of possession." Coming to the third point it has been held thus : "RESPONDENT 1 (respondent 3 in SLP) had absolutely no necessity to execute any sham documents. The fact that respondents 5 and 6 (respondents 1 and 2 in the SLP) came into possession and exercised their rights under Exs. A-2 and A-3 by payment of rent and revenue and payment of consideration spoken to by both the vendor and vendee are sufficient to hold that they are bona tide purchasers for consideration." Under the fourth point, the relief claimed by the appellants was held to a be rejected. In the result, the order of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed dismissing E.A. 556 of 1970. (7) THE learned Subordinate Judge has also expressed his opinion in his judgment that in summary proceedings under S. 13-B of the Act, the plea of the appellants that respondent 3 was a benamidar of respondent 4 cannot be allowed to be raised in the light of S. 66 of the Civil Procedure Code. (8) ON being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, the appellants preferred E.S.A. No. 15 of 1979. The respondents filed their cross-objections. Though the High court admitted the appeal on being satisfied that the appeal involves as many as II substantial questions of law, it disposed the appeal on a short ground that the documents and the evidence adduced by respondents 1 and 2 (Govindan Nair and Ambrolil Ammalu) clearly show that respondents 1 and 2 are bona fide purchasers of the properties in question for consideration and the pica of benami put forth by the appellants has to be negatived. igh court disposed the contentions in the main appeal observing thus: "IT is not necessary for me to examine this question and finally adjudicate it, since I have upheld the decision of the lower appellate court on Other grounds. igh court disposed the contentions in the main appeal observing thus: "IT is not necessary for me to examine this question and finally adjudicate it, since I have upheld the decision of the lower appellate court on Other grounds. I only indicate that the respondents counsel sought to soust in the conclusion of the lower appellate court on other grounds as well." In the result, the High court affirmed the decree of the lower appellate court and dismissed the second appeal with costs. "There is no need to dispose of the cross-objections on the merits. It is ordered accordingly."(1 Whether respondents 1 and 2 are bona tide purchasers of the scheduled land in dispute for adequate consideration entitled to the benefit of the proviso to S. 13-B(1?(2 Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of sub S. (1 of S. 13-B of the Act?"13-B. There is no requirement in any of the clauses that an offer of readiness to comply with any order for deposit of costs must be expressed in any judgment, decree or order of court, where any holding has been sold in execution of any decree for arrears of rent. and the tenant has been dispossessed of the holding after the 1st day of April, 1964 and before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, such sale shall stand set aside and such tenant shall be entitled to restoration of possession of the holding, subject to the provisions of this S. :Provided that nothing in this Ss. shall apply in any case where the holding has been sold to a bona tide purchaser for consideration after the date of such dispossession and before the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 1968 in the gazelle.""The apparent inadequacy is no ground to think that there is no consideration.... I dont think that the recitals in Exs. A-2 and A-3 can be overlooked for this or the other reasons stated by the learned Munsiff.""... that respondents 1 and 2 came into possession of the properties and exercised their rights under Exs. A-2 and A-3 by payment of rent and revenue and payment of consideration spoken to by both the vendor and vendee and as such they are bona fide purchasers for consideration.""Most of these document are public records or registers kept in the respective village office and proceedings in courts. A-2 and A-3 by payment of rent and revenue and payment of consideration spoken to by both the vendor and vendee and as such they are bona fide purchasers for consideration.""Most of these document are public records or registers kept in the respective village office and proceedings in courts. There is no error of law in placing reliance on such documents. The finding entered by the learned Subordinate Judge that respondents 5 and 6 are bona fide purchasers for consideration is based on substantial evidence. It cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or perverse.""That jurisdiction (under Article 136 of the Constitution of India) has to be exercised sparingly. But, that cannot mean that injustice must be perpetuated because it has been done two or three times in a case. The burden of showing that a concurrent decision of two or more courts or tribunals is manifestly unjust lies on the appellant. But once that burden is discharged, it is not only the right but the duty of the Supreme court to remedy the injustice."(1 Any "holding" to which a tenant is entitled to restoration of possession should have been sold in execution of any decree for arrears of rent.(2 The tenant should have been dispossessed of the "holding" after the first day of April 1964 ana before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969."This is a serious legal error. It is not necessary for me to examine this question and finally adjudicate it, since I have upheld the decision or the lower appellate court on other grounds.""The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them.