Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2004 DIGILAW 1688 (SC)

AMMINIS v. State Of Kerala

2004-12-01

B.N.SRIKRISHNA, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL

body2004
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The proceedings in this case were taken up suo motu under Section 72-C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) (for short "the Act") by the Land Tribunal. By the common order dated 30-4-1983, the Land Tribunal allowed the claim of the contesting respondents, except as regards thirty-eight cents in Survey No. 153/2. Two appeals were filed by the appellants herein (landlords) before the Appellate Authority, Trichur. The Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals by its order dated 24-6-1983. The appellants took up the matter before the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 3145 of 1983. The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remitted the case to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeals. After such reconsideration, the Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the contesting respondents to the extent of 1.01 acres of land in Survey No. 153/3. This time, the contesting respondents preferred revision petition before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and restored the order made by the Land Tribunal; in other words, the assignment of 1.01 acres of land in Survey No. 153/3 was affirmed in favour of the contesting respondents. Hence, these appeals by the landlords. 3. This Court, on 1-5-1998, granted leave to consider the only question, whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Act to interfere with a pure finding of fact. 4. Mr T.L.V. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, urged that (1) the High Court committed a serious error in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority. According to him, looking to the scope of the revisional powers to be exercised under Section 103 of the Act, it was not open to the High Court to do so. Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from jurisdictional error; and (2) even otherwise, the Appellate Authority having recorded a finding of fact on proper appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, the High Court committed an error in disturbing the order made by the Appellate Authority. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents made submissions supporting the impugned order. He pointed out to the relevant portions of the impugned order and submitted that the High Court was right in exercising the revisional powers under Section 103 of the Act. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The High Court, in para (2) of the impugned order, has stated thus: " ... It is to be remembered that the land was situate in an area to which the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act, 1118 ME applied and under that statute the tenant was entitled to fixity of tenure. It is therefore all the more necessary for the landowner to clearly establish that the land had been surrendered in fact by the tenant. The Appellate Authority has relied on Ext. A-9 which itself refers to land in Ollur village and there is nothing to indicate that this particular land was excluded from within the purview of the receipt. I am therefore satisfied that the order of the Appellate Authority calls for interference under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act." 8. Again, in para (3), the High Court has proceeded to observe thus: "3. The oral evidence on the side of the respondent is not sufficient to establish any surrender of the tenancy by Raman or his father Chathu. Therefore once it is found that the documents do not establish that the lease originally granted was surrendered by the lessee or that possession of the property was resumed by the landowner, the finding rendered by the Appellate Authority has only to be set aside. There is nothing in the oral evidence on the side of the applicants which leads to any inference of surrender of any part of the leasehold either by Chathu or by Raman." 9. In view of what is stated by the High Court, we find it difficult to hold that the High Court committed an error in exercising revisional powers under Section 1m of the Act. When the Appellate Authority has misread the documents, in particular Exhibit A-9 which had bearing on the decision in regard to the claim of the contesting respondents, no fault can be found with the impugned order. It is well settled that misconstruction or wrong reading of a document itself is a question of law. When the Appellate Authority has misread the documents, in particular Exhibit A-9 which had bearing on the decision in regard to the claim of the contesting respondents, no fault can be found with the impugned order. It is well settled that misconstruction or wrong reading of a document itself is a question of law. That apart, it is not possible to say that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court suffers from any serious infirmity. Under the circumstances, in our view, it is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the impugned order, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the civil appeals are dismissed. 10. No costs.