http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: KUCHIYAN GOVINDA SWAMI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALLIANI AMMA LEKSHMI AMMA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/03/1966

BENCH:

ACT: Kerala  Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Ker. 1 of 1964), ss.  2(28), 2(26) -"Kuzhikanam" and "Kudiyiruppu", meaning.

HEADNOTE: By a deed styled ‘otti Kuzhikanam deed’, the predecessor  of the respondent sold a building standing on a property to the predecessor of the appellant and also transferred to him the right  to  possess and enjoy the property for  12  years  in Kuzhikanam  right  with  liberty  to  plant  coconut   trees thereon.   The  deed expressly reserved the  right  for  the respondent to enjoy the fruit bearing trees then standing on the  properties. and provided that after expiry of 12  years the  appellant  would on demand demolish and take  away  the building and surrender possession of the land on receipt  of a certain amount and he agreed compensation for the  coconut trees planted by him.  The respondent instituted a suit  for redemption of the property, which was decreed.  On  appeals, the  decree  was  affirmed by the District  Court  and  High Court.  In appeal to this Court the appellant claimed fixity of tenure and protection from eviction on the ground that he was  (i) a Kuzhikanamdar under s. 2(57)(d) and s. 2(28),  or alternatively.(ii)  the  holder  of a kudiyiruppu  under  s. 2(57) (h) and s. 2(26) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. HELD: (i) The deed did not grant Kuzhikanam rights to the appellant. "Kuzhikanam" as defined in s. 2(28) means a transfer (1)  of garden  lands  or of other lands or of both,  (2)  with  the fruit bearing trees, if any standing thereon at the time  of the’ transfer, (3) for the enjoyment of those trees and  (4) for  the  purpose  of  planting  such  fruit  bearing  trees thereon.  It does not include a usufructuary mortgage as de- fined  in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but it was  not the  case  of the respondent that the deed  created  such  a usufructuary mortgage. [137 E-F] A  transfer  of land without the fruit  bearing  trees  then standing  on it and not carrying with it the right to  enjoy those  trees  was not a kuzhikanam as defined in  s.  2(28). The  force  of  the  words "if any"  in  the  definition  of "kuzhikanam"  in  s. 2(28) is that if there  are  any  fruit bearing  trees on the land at the time of the transfer,  the trees  also must be transferred for their enjoyment  by  the transferee. [137 H-138 B] (ii)The  appellant was not the holder of Kudiyiruppu  within the meaning of s. 2(26) of the Act. There  was  no  material  on the record  to  show  that  the building on the land was a residential building.   Moreover, it  did  not  appear that the land  was  necessary  for  the convenient enjoyment of the building. [138 D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1964. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and decree  dated July  25, 1961 of the Kerala High Court in S.A. No.  852  of 1957. L/S5SCI-11 136 A.   G. Pudissery, for the appellant. M.   R. K. Pillai, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat,  J. In 1921, the plaintiff executed in  favour  of the defendant an otti kuzhikanam deed in respect of the suit property.  By this deed, the plaintiff sold to the defendant the  building  standing on the property for 350  fanams  and also transferred to him for 350 fanams the right to  possess and enjoy the property for 12 years in kuzhikanam right with liberty to plant coconut trees thereon, expressly  reserving for the plaintiff the right to enjoy the fruit bearing trees then standing on the property’ The deed provided that  after the  expiry  of  12  years the  defendant  would  on  demand demolish and take away the building and surrender possession of  the  land  on  receipt of  350  fanams  and  the  agreed compensation  for  the coconut trees planted  by  him.   The plaintiff instituted a suit for redemption of the  property. During the pendency of the litigation, the plaintiff and the defendant   died,  and  their  legal  representatives   were substituted in their place.  On May 31, 1951, the  Principal District  Munsif  Quilon decreed the suit.  On  appeal,  the District Court of Quilon affirmed this decree.  The  present appellant,  who is one of the legal representatives  of  the original defendant, filed a second appeal in the High  Court of  Kerala.  During the pendency of this appeal, the  Kerala Agrarian  Relations  Act, 1960 (Act IV of  1961)  came  into force.  Before the High Court, the appellant claimed  fixity of tenure and protection from eviction on the ground that he was  a  kuzhikanamdar  or alternatively,  the  holder  of  a kudiyiruppu, and, therefore, a tenant within the meaning  of s.  2(50) (i)(e) read with s. 2(22) and s. 2(50)(i)(j)  read with  s. 2(21) of Act IV of 1961.  The High Court  negatived this  contention, and dismissed the appeal.   The  appellant now  appeals  to this Court by special  leave.   During  the pendency of this appeal, Act IV of 1961 was repealed and the Kerala  Land  Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of  1964)  came  into force.   The  appellant  now claims  fixity  of  tenure  and protection from eviction on the ground that he is a,  kuzhi- kanamdar  within  the meaning of s. 2(57)(d)  read  with  s. 2(28), or alternatively, the holder of a kudiyiruppu  within the  meaning of s. 2(57)(h) read with s. 2(26) of Act  1  of 1964.   In  the  High  Court,  the  appellant  also  claimed protection  from  eviction  on  the ground  that  he  was  a ’kudikidappukaran’, but this contention was negatived by the High Court and is no longer pressed. Section 13 of Act 1 of 1964 gives to every tenant fixity  of tenure in respect of his holding, and forbids resumption  of the  holding  except as provided in ss. 14 to  22.   Section 2(57)  defines  ’tenant’.  By sections 2(57)(d) and  (h),  a tenant  includes  a  kuzhikanamdar  and  the  holder  of   a kudiyiruppu.   The appellant does not contend that he  is  a tenant as defined in the main part of s. 2(57).                             137 He,  however, contends that he is a tenant as defined in  s. 2(57)(d) and s. 2(57)(h).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

The  deed  of 1921 was styled ’otti  kuzhikanam  deed’.   In Malabar,  the  word  "otti"  in  the  context  of  the  deed designates  a  possessory mortgage.  According  to  Wilson’s Glossary  of Judicial and Revenue Terms,  "kurikanam"  means "compensation  allowed  for the value of trees  planted,  or other  improvements  made  by the  tenant  or  mortgagee  on relinquishing  possession;  a  lease  or  mortgage  on  such conditions."  Under  a  kuzhikanam  mortgage  or  lease   in Malabar, the grantee normally acquires the right to hold the property  for  12 years for the purpose of  planting  fruit- bearing  trees  thereon and to claim  compensation  for  the value of the trees planted on relinquishing possession.  Had there   been  no  special  definition  of   the   expression "kuzhikanam"  in Act 1 of 1964, we would have been  inclined to  hold  that  the grantee under the deed  of  1921  was  a kuzhikanamdar.  But s. 2(28) of Act 1 of 1964 provides  that in  this Act unless the context otherwise requires,  "kuzhi- kanam"  means and includes a transfer of garden lands or  of other  lands  or of both, with the fruit-bearing  trees,  if any,  standing thereon at the time of the transfer, for  the enjoyment  of  those trees and for the purpose  of  planting such  fruit-bearing  trees thereon but shall not  include  a usufructuary mortgage as defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882." This definition of kuzhikanam is both  inclusive and exhaustive.  Unless the context requires otherwise,  the expression "kuzhikanam in the Act can have only the  meaning given  in S. 2(28).  There is nothing in the context  of  S. 2(57) and s. 13, which requires a different meaning for this expression.   "Kuzhikanam"  as defined in s. 2(28)  means  a transfer  (1) of garden lands or of other lands or of  both, (2)  with the fruit-bearing trees, if any, standing  thereon at the time of the transfer, (3) for the enjoyment of  those trees and (4) for the purpose of planting such  fruitbearing trees thereon.  It does not include a usufructuary  mortgage as defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but it  is not the case of the plaintiff that the deed of 1921  created such  a usufructuary mortgaee.  Now the deed of 1921,  while effecting  a  transfer of land for the purpose  of  planting coconut  trees thereon, expressly reserved for  the  grantor the right to enjoy the fruit-bearing trees then standing  on the  land and did not transfer those trees to the  ,grantee. On  behalf  of the appellant, it was argued that  the  words "with  the fruit-bearing trees, if any, standing thereon  at the time of the transfer, for the enjoyment of those  trees" are not essential parts of the definition of ’kuzhikanam’ in s.  2(28), and that we should hold that a transfer  of  land for  the purpose of planting fruit-bearing trees thereon  is kuzhikanam, though there is no transfer of the fruit-bearing trees  standing on the land at the time of the transfer  and though the transfer is not for the enjoyment of those trees. We  are unable to accept this contention.  We think  that  a transfer  of  land  without  the  fruit-bearing  trees  then standing  on it and Dot carrying with it the right to  enjoy those trees is not a L/S5SCI-11(a) 138 kuzhikanam  as defined in s. 2(28).  The force of the  words "if  any" in the definition is that if there are any  fruit- bearing  trees on the land at the time of the transfer,  the trees  also must be transferred for their enjoyment  by  the transferee.   The contention that the deed of  1921  granted kuzhikanam rights as defined in s. 2(28) of Act 1 of 1964 is rejected. The appellant next contends that he is the holder of kudiyi- ruppu.   Section  2(26)  of  Act 1  of  1964  which  defines

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

’kudiyiruppu’ reads:               "  kudiyiruppu" means a holding or part  of  a               holding   consisting  of  the  site   of   any               residential  building,  the site or  sites  of               other  buildings  appurtenant  thereto,   such               other   lands   as  are  necessary   for   the               convenient   enjoyment  of  such   residential               building  and easements attached thereto,  but               does not include a kudikidappu." I  here  is  no  material on the record  to  show  that  the building  on the land is a residential building.   Moreover, it  does  not  appear that the land  is  necessary  for  the convenient  enjoyment of the building.  The contention  that the appellant is the holder of kudiyiruppu is rejected. The  appeal fails and is dismissed.  There will be no  order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.                             139