Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Abstract
- In the event – plantation activities cease or are discontinued, that land would also be treated as ‘excess land’.
- Hence, it is indisputably explicit – NO VESTED RIGHT or OWNERSHIP is conferred on LAND by the ‘plantation-exemption’.
- It is beyond doubt – the legislature never intended (where a large extent of land had been forcibly got surrendered from other land owners), to bring an inequitable and discriminatory disparity, while ‘plantation-exemption’ was conferred under Sec. 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
Part I.
CAN AN AN EXEMPTED PLANTATION LAND BE SOLD AS AN ABSOLUTE PRIVATE PROPERTY?
No.
- Sec. 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act deals with ceiling area.
- Sec. 83 mandates that no person shall be entitled to own or hold lands in excess of the ceiling area.
- Sec. 83 reads – “83. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. With effect from such dates as may be notified by the Government in the Gazette, no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area.”
- Sec. 85 directs that excess land shall be surrendered to Government (accepting the compensation fixed under Sec. 88).
- Though Sec. 81 (generally?) exempts plantations from the provisions of Chapter III, Sec. 87 directs that the protection of plantation is available only so long as the plantation subsists.
- Therefore, if the plantation activities cease or are discontinued, such land shall likewise be regarded in the same manner – as excess land.
- Consequently, it is unequivocally clear that NO VESTED RIGHT or OWNERSHIP would be conferred on LAND by virtue of the ‘plantation-exemption’.
- It is most unjustifiable to confer undue rights to plantation-tenants (majority are BIG Companies) which had not been given to Maharaja of Travancore (whose 191 acres of lands in Thiruvananthapuram – above the ceiling limit, 15 acres – in the City was ‘mercilessly’ taken under the Orders of the Land Board Trivandrum, No. LB(B)2-18919/70, dated 15.01.1972) so also lands of thousands of middleclass property owners.
Part II.
ACQUISITION OF PLANTATION-LANDS OWNED BY PRIVATE PERSONS
1. Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India
It is plain – No compensation is payable to the land-owners, for the lands ‘above the ceiling limit’, according to the Constitution of India. If any authority gives it, it will be a sheer unscrupulous act. Because:
- The provisions of the KLR Act, as regards ‘vesting’, ‘excess land’ etc., are legislated predicating upon the Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India which states that the State need not pay compensation to the lands above the ‘ceiling limit‘.
- Proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India reads as under:
- “Provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof.”
2. Exemption of ‘Plantation’ Does Not Cover Exemption of ‘Plantation LAND’
It is for the following reasons –
- 1. The exemption is to the ‘plantation’, and not to the ‘LAND‘.
- 2. Exemption is conditional – for it exists (only) as long as the plantation exists or continues;
- Because,
- (a) Section 2(44) defines ‘plantation’ as land used principally for the cultivation of a specific ‘plantation crop‘ like tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber etc.
- (b) Section 87, Explanation II states that if a plantation for which exemption is given on recognition of a specific ‘plantation-crop’ is converted into any other ‘plantation-crop’ or the plantation activity is not continued, the exemption may be lost; and the land will be taken for considering the ceiling limit.
- Section 81(4) allows the person holding a plantation to use land “not exceeding 5% of the extent of such holding for floriculture, medicinal plants, for conducting dairy farms, for establishing hotels or resorts or other tourism projects etc.
Effect of Conversion or Sale of a Portion of Exempted Land
Section 87 reads as under:
- “S.87. Excess land obtained by gift, etc. to be surrendered – (1) Where any person acquires any land dafter the date notified under Section 83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered to such authority as may be prescribed.
- Explanation 1 – Where any land is exempted by or under Section 81 and such exemption is in force on the date notified under Section 83, such land shall, with effect from the date on which it ceases to be exempted, be deemed to be land acquired after the date notified under Section 83.
- Explanation II – Where, after the date notified under Section 83, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or any land exempt under Section 81 from the provisions of this Chapter is converted into any class of land not so exempt and in consequence thereof the total extent of land owned or held by a person exceeds the ceiling area, so much extent of land as is in excess of the ceiling area, shall be deemed to be land acquired after the said date.
Explanation II is explained by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, 2018-4 KLT 913, as under:
- “The consequence is that the benefit of the exemption would be lost and the extent added to the account of the assesse or the declarant in determination of his ceiling area.”
That is, if a person converts any portion of his exempted land to any other class, that converted extent will be added to his account in determining his ceiling limit; and the Taluk Land Board can proceed upon that (excess) land. In short, the exemption will be lost for that portion and that land would also be treated as excess land.
Fragmentation has to be Treated as Conversion for Non-exempted Category
The decision in One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 KHC(SN) 10; 2019-1 KLT 985, arose from the Writ Petition filed for a declaration that the fragmentation and sale of a Rubber Plantation for non-plantation purposes was illegal as it defeated the purpose of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. When the matter was placed before the Taluk Land Board under Sec 87, KLR Act, it found that there was no change in classification of the land and therefore dropped the proceedings. The High Court held as under:
- “34. Section 81 of the KLR Act is in pith and substance a special provision, with its main objective of giving exemption to certain lands including the lands maintained as plantations is to prevent fragmentation of the land and to keep it as plantation itself to improve the economy of the state for welfare of people as a whole while the Act creates a regime, the State is under an obligation to safeguard, the intended purpose of the provisions of the Act in its spirit. ….. …… It could be gathered from the records that the proposal to transfer 1.03 acres of land to each workers in discharge of their service or retrenchment benefits will definitely divide the plantation into separate slots and that would definitely change the character/nature of the plantation, which could be termed as ‘conversion’ and that will be against the provisions of the Act.”
- “37. …. Fragmentation of the estate and transfer of it has to be treated as a case of conversion of plantation into some other category of land. Such being the scenario, fragmentation amounts to serious violation of the provisions of KLR Act. Hence, we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No.18 that the fragmented plots will be maintained as plantation by the transferees, so as to extend/avail the benefit of HMT’s case (supra). Taking into account of all the relevant aspects, we have no hesitation in holding that dropping of the suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 87 of KLR Act by the TLB in a cursory manner, is not at all reasonable or justifiable when tested on the touchstone of the object and intention, which the legislation seeks to achieve and beyond what is required, in the interest of the public.”
Apportionment of land value in cases of Acquisition
Sec. 112 of the KLR Act reads-
- “112. Apportionment’s of land value in cases of acquisition – (1) Where any land is acquired under the law for the time being in force providing for the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, the compensation awarded under such law in respect of the land acquired shall be apportioned among the landowner, intermediaries, cultivating tenant and the kudikidappukaran in the manner specified in this Section.
- (2) The compensation for any building or other improvements shall be awarded to the person entitled to such building or other improvements.
- (3) The kudikidappukaran shall be entitled to the value of the land occupied by his homestead or hut subject to a minimum of-
- three cents in a city or major municipality; or
- five cents in any other municipally; or
- ten cents in a panchayat area or township.
- (4) The difference between the value of three cents or five cents or ten cents, as the case may be, and the value of the extent of the land occupied by the homestead or hut shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, be borne by the Government or the local authority or the company or other person on whose behalf the land is acquired.
- (5) The balance remaining after deducting the compensation referred to in Sub-section (2) and the value of the land occupied by the homestead or hut shall he apportioned among the landowner, the intermediaries and the cultivating tenant in proportion to the profits derivable by them from the land acquired immediately before such acquisition.
- Explanation. – “Profits derivable from the land” shall be deemed to be equal to (i) in the case of a landowner, the rent which he was entitled to get from the tenant holding immediately under him; (ii) in the case of an intermediary, the difference between the rent which he was entitled to get from his tenant and the rent for which he was liable to his landlord; and (iii) in the case of a cultivating tenant, the difference between the net income and the rent payable by him; and the rent payable by the cultivating tenant and the intermediary for the purposes of this Explanation shall be as calculated under the provisions of this Act.
- (5A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (2) and (5), where there the right, title and interest of the land owner and the intermediaries in respect of the land acquired have vested in the Government under Section 72, –
- (a) the compensation for any building or other improvements belonging to such landowner and intermediaries shall be awarded to the Government; and
- (b) the balance remaining after deducting the compensation referred to in clause (a) and the value of the land occupied by the homestead or hut, if any, shall be apportioned between the cultivating tenant and the Government in proportion to the profits derivable by them from the land.*fn*
- Explanation. – “Profits derivable from the land” shall be deemed to be equal to-
- in the case of the cultivating tenant, the difference between the net income immediately before the acquisition and the rent which he was liable to pay immediately before the date on which the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries have vested in the Government; and
- in the case of the Government, such rent.
- (7) In this Section, “homestead” includes a dwelling house occupied by a person who is deemed to be a kudikidappukaran under Explanation IIA to clause (25) of Section 2.”
- Foot Note:
- *fn* 1. “Value of the land occupied by the homestead or hut” says as to the actual area where the ‘homestead or hut’ is situated; whatever may be the area of land outside it.
- 2. This provision is applied to lease-lands vested in Govt. under Sec. 72 and no purchase certificate is given (to the tenant).
No Land value to be given for the “excess” land (Beyond Ceiling Limit)
From the following words in Sect. 112, it is beyond doubt that no Land value to be given for the “excess” land (Beyond Ceiling Limit).
- “building or other improvements“
- “land occupied by the homestead or hut”
- “any building or other improvements“.
It is true, “exemption” is given to plantation, to hold land over and above ceiling limit. It is only a statutory permission to continue, subject to conditions. It will be lost when it is “fragmented” or the crop is abandoned. It is also most unjustifiable to confer undue rights or benefits to the plantation owners or tenants (majority are BIG Companies) which had not been given to thousands of middleclass property owners whose property had been harshly sized or expropriated under the provisions of the KLR Act.
Read connected Blogs
- Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land Board
- Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land Owners?
- Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
- Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
- Freehold Property in Law
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
- Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
- Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
- Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
- Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
- Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
- Grant in Law
- Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.
- 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land Matters
- Plantation-Exemption Does Not Confer Ownership over the Land
- What is Patta or Pattayam?
- Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
End Notes
Relevant provisions of KLR Act, in a Nutshell
| Section | Provisions in a Nutshell |
| Chap. II 3(1) | Exemptions – (i) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to – (viii) Tenancies of plantations exceeding 30 acres. “Provided that the provisions of this chapter, other than sections 53 to 72S, shall apply to tenancies in respect of agricultural lands which are treated as plantations under sub clause (c) of clause (44) of Section 2”. |
| 7 E | Persons acquired lands (before 2005 amendment in KLR Act) for consideration below 1 Ha. 61 Are 87 Sq.m. (4 acre) will be deemed to be tenants . |
| 13 | Fixity: “Every tenant, shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding.” |
| 22 | Landlord desiring to resume any land shall apply to the Land Tribunal. |
| 31 | Fair rent determined by Land Tribunal. |
| 51B. | Landlord not to enter on land surrendered or abandoned by the tenant. Contravention is made punishable. |
| 54(1) 55 57 57 (3) 57 (6) 61 | 54(1). A cultivating tenant (to purchase the right) has to apply Land Tribunal. 55. Purchase price is fixed by LT (on fair rent u/s. 31) to be paid u/s. 59 57. The LT after enquiries, pass orders determining purchase price. (3). The Land Tribunal allows the purchase of the land it determines. (6). The Land Tribunal forwards orders to the Land Board. 61. Tenant to pay rent (under orders of LT) pending proceedings. |
| 59 | When Sec. 54 application is allowed (by the LT), the purchase price (determined u/s. 57 by the LT) shall be deposited with the Land Tribunal to the credit of the Land Board and issue of certificate – to cultivating tenant. |
| 72 | Sec. 72 provides for automatic vesting of lease-properties held by cultivating tenants in Govt. ILR 2010(2) Ker. 845. 72(1) says: Holdings upon which tenanat entilted fixity under sec. 13 vest in govt. |
| 72B | Cultivating-tenant “shall be entitled to assignment” of land vested in Govt. under Sec. 72 –within ceiling area and get purchase certificate (through LT) (2 years from 1-1-1970). Effect of non-filing (See Balanoor Plantations case. 2018(3) KLT 283.) |
| 72D | The cultivating tenant has to pay the purchase price to the Government on the assignment to him of the right, title and interest of the landowner. (If the extent of land is one hectare or below, he shall not be liable to pay.) |
| 72E | Such tenant is liable to pay rent to the Government. |
| 72C | Provides for suo moto action by LT. (No time limit). Rule 5 of the Vesting & Assignment Rules provides – LT may suo moto – notwithstanding no application – assign to cultivating tenant. (See S.72C also). |
| 72K | LT shall issue purchase certificate. It shall be conclusive proof of assignment. |
| 74 | Prohibition of future tenancies. |
| Chap. III 81 | Exemption from ceiling and excess for Govt. lands, private forests, plantations, industrial or commercial undertakings, etc. Proviso – There will be an exemption (as plantation, land given to educational institution, trust, etc.) on Government lands, given under grant, lease, etc. See: HMT (Machine Tools) Limited v. Taluk Land Board, 2009 (3) KLJ 110; MT Joseph v. State of Kerala, AIR 1974 Ker 28. |
| 82 | Ceiling area – 5/10 standard acres. |
| 83 | No person can hold or possess excess of ceiling area. (Holding is by tenant.) It is a total bar. (Note: plantations, industrial area etc. are exempted.) Apply to tenant also. 1980 KLT 259 (Gopalan Nair Vs. State), 1976 KLT 306 (Thomas Mariamma Vs. TLB), Raghunath Laxman Wani v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 2137) The policy of the Act – no person –“be permitted to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area.” Raghunath Laxman Wani v. State of Maharashtra, 1971-3 SCC 391, Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal v. Mohan Lal Punchand Tatbed, 1982-1 SCC 680, State of U.P v. Civil Judge, Nainital, AIR 1987 SC 16, State Vs. Puliyangattu, 2008(1) KLJ 571. |
| 84 | Certain transfers – void. |
| 85(1) | Surrender excess. |
| 85(2) | Owners and Tenants (having land in excess of the ceiling area) should furnish ceiling return to Land Board before March31, 1971, before the Land Board (including lands exempted under S. 81). Note: Effect of non-filing: See – Balanoor Plantations case – 2018(3) KLT 283.State of Kerala Vs. Varkey Mathew, AIR 1996 SC 1009. According to S. 3(1) (viii), “tenancies of plantations exceeding 30 acres” is exempted from Chapter II. Therefore, the landlord can recover such plantation lands after the period of tenancy. Such landlords also had to file a ceiling return within the time stipulated. |
| 85(3) | Excess shall be surrendered. Note: Tenant must have approached the LT (with respect to each plantation, if he has more plantations) (He cannot declare himself a tenant) It is clear from the following provisions: 54(1) – A cultivating tenant has to apply to LT (or the purchase of right, title and interest.) 55 – Purchase price and fair rent fixed by LT 57 – LT after giving notice and enquiries, pass orders (on the application for the purchase of right, title and interest). 57(3) – LT allots the purchase land it determines. 57(6) – The Land Tribunal forwards a copy of orders to the Land Board. 61 – Cultivating tenant to pay rent (under orders of LT) 59 – The purchase price shall be deposited with the LT (to the credit of the Land Board) and issue of certificate – to cultivating tenant. It is the principle applied in the Balanoor case. Note: (i) The sub-section (3) itself says as to the settlement of claims for resumption and purchase of the right, title, and interest of the landowner by the cultivating tenant, (ii) LT is the only authority to determine tenancy (Land Board cannot determine it), and (iii) it is clear that even if it is a plantation-exemption-land (beyond ceiling limit), the tenant has to file petition under Section 54 – for fixing Purchase price and fair rent fixed by LT and for allotting the land under section 57(3) and for effecting the payments of ‘rent’ and ‘purchase price’(to the credit of the Land Board) under sec. 61 and 59. |
| 85(3A) | The person bound to file a statement under sub-section (2) (that is, Owners and Tenants – having land in excess of the ceiling area) shall, within a period of three months from the date of final settlement or purchase, file a statement before the Land Board, and the provisions of the said Sub-section shall, as far as may he, apply in regard to the particulars to be contained in such statement, the calculation of the excess land and for the procedure for the surrender of the same. |
| 85(5) | On receipt of the statement under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3A), the Land Board shall transfer the statement to such Taluk Land Board and such Taluk LandBoard shall determine the extent and identity of the land to be surrendered. |
| 85(7) | Whereon a person fails to file statement under 85(2) or (3A), LB shall intimate that fact to TLB – TLB shall determine land to be surrendered. It is obvious – The LB can intimate TLB as to non-filing, on the basis of the records it obtained under Sec. 57(6) and 59. That is, those tenants who are not entitled to get a purchase certificate also has to file an application under Sec. 54(1) and 85(2) or (3A). Effect of non-filing: See – Balanur Plantations case (With respect to Sec. 72B application) – 2018(3) KLT 283. Statute prescribes liability on the person who owes or hold the land in excess of the ceiling limit to file statement: State of Kerala Vs. Varkey Mathew, AIR 1996 SC 1009. [TLB not to do, suo motu, without direction from LB. 1980 KLT 120, referred to in 2019(1) KLT 985.] |
| 85A | File ceiling return within March 2, 1973 before Land Board.. |
| 86(1) | On determination of the extent to be surrendered under S. 85- Excess vests in Govt. and Taluk Land Board shall issue an order accordingly. |
| 86(3) | Where any person fails to surrender as demanded, the TLB may order an officer to take possession |
| 86(4) | Where any land, vests in the Govt, under s. 86(1) (including that of cultivating tenant) the ownership of such land shall vest in the Govt. |
| 86(6) | Nothing applies to property of Govt. under KLC Act. |
| 87 Exp. II | If a person converts any portion of exempted land for any other class, that converted extent will be added to his account in determining his ceiling limit. That is, the exemption will be lost for the portion that exceeds the ceiling limit. (Mathew K Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, 2018-4 KLT 913) |
How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “
Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):
Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles
Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code
- Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
- Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
- Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
- Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
- Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
- Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
- Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
- Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
- Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Pleadings in Defamation Suits
- Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
- UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
- PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
- Declaration and Injunction
- Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
- Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
- Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
- Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
- Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
- Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
- What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
- ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
- Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
- Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
- Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
- Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
- Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
- Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
- Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
- Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
- Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
- Principles of Equity in Indian Law
- Thangam v. Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
- No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
- Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
- Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
- Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making Institutions
Principles and Procedure
- Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
- BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
- Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
- Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
- All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
- Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
- Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
- Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- Declaration and Injunction
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
- Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
- Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
- Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
- Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
- What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
- Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of Fraud.
PROPERTY LAW
Title, ownership and Possession
- ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
- Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
- Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
- Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
- Title and Ownership in Indian Law
- Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
- 22nd Law Commission Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
- Adverse Possession Against Government
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
- Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
- Grant in Law
- Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)
- Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
- SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent Title
- Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by Force
Adverse Possession
- What is Adverse Possession in Indian Law?
- Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (October 14, 2024) – Supreme Court Denied the Tenant’s Claim of Adverse Possession
- How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession Against Government
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
- Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
- Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma, 2024 INSC 1021, Composite Suit (Cancellation & Recovery) – Substantive Relief Determines Limitation
Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act
- Travancore Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 (1865 AD) and 1061 (1886 AD), And 1922 Devaswom Proclamation
- Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
- Freehold Property in Law
- What is Patta or Pattayam?
- Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
- Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
- Vested interest and Contingent Interest
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
- Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
- Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
- Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
- Grant in Law
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
Land Reform Laws
- Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land Owners?
- Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
- Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
- Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
- Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
- Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
- Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
- Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
- Grant in Law
- Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.
- 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land Matters
Power of attorney
- No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
- Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
- Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
- If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
- Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
- Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.
Evidence Act – General
- Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
- Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Evidence in Court – General Principles
- Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- What is Collateral Purpose?
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
- Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
- How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
- Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
- Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
Sec. 65B
- Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
- Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
- ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Certificate forms
- Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
- How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?
Admission, Relevancy and Proof
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
- Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’
Law on Documents
- Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
- Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
- Time Limit for Registration of Documents
- Registration of Documents Executed out of India
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
- What is Collateral Purpose?
- No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
- Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
- 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
- Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
- Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
Documents – Proof and Presumption
- Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a Photocopy?
- Marking of Photocopy and Law on Marking Documents on Admission (Without Formal Proof)
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
- 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
Interpretation
- Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Wills
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
Contract Act
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
- All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
Law on Damages
- Law on Damages
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
- Pleadings in Defamation Suits
Easement
- Easement Simplified
- What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ Servient Land After Making Improvements Therein ?
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
- What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
- Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
- Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
- Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
- Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
- “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
- Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
- Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
- Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
- ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
- Grant in Law
- Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
- Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
- One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement
- Should the Plaintiff Schedule Servient Heritage in a Suit Claiming Perspective Easement?
Stamp Act & Registration
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
- Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
- Time Limit for Registration of Documents
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Registration of Documents Executed out of India
- LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
Divorce/Marriage
- Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long Spell
- Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
- Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
- Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile
Negotiable Instruments Act
- Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
- Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
- Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
- “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
- Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
- Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
- What is ‘Cognizance’ in Law
- What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
Arbitration
- Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame
- N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
- What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
- Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
- No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?
Will
- Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
- Interpretation of Wills
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
- When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
- A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit
Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues
- Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
- Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
- Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
- Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
- Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
- Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
- Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India)
- Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
- Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head
Religious issues
- Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
- Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
- ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
- No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
- Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
- Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
- Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
- SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
- Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict
Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India
- General
- Property & Trust
- Juristic Personality
- Suits
- Amendment and Dissolution
- Rights and Management
- Election
- State Actions
Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India
- General Principles
- Dedication and Vesting
- Trustees and Management
- Breach of Trust
- Suits by or against Trusts
- Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
- Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Constitutional Principles
- Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
- General