Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969

9 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

L. V ASANTHA KUMARIversusBALAMMAL AND ORS.

1994 INSC 56530 November 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, L. V. Vasantha Kumar, occupied a hut on land that had been sold by Subramonian Pillai to Vaikuntam Pillai in 1955, and later claimed ownership based on an agreement to purchase. The respondent, Balammal, obtained a decree for specific performance of that agreement and subsequently sued for possession, al

AMINA BEEVIversusTHACHI & ORS.

2010 INSC 74427 October 2010Dismissed

The petitioners challenged a leasehold assignment deed (Exhibit A3) executed by the tenant Kunjali in favour of Abdul Kadar, arguing it was a valid assignment and that their remedy lay only in an application to the Land Tribunal under Section 13A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Supreme Court held that the deed was

SANKARANARAYANAN POTTI (DEAD) BY L.RS.versusK.SREEDEVI AND ORS.

1998 INSC 15626 March 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an Otti mortgagee (defendant No. 2) who, after a preliminary decree of redemption, claimed to be a "cultivating tenant" under the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 and obtained a purchase certificate from the Kerala Land Tribunal. The appellant sought to have the final decree proceedings in t

MADHAVI AMMA & ORS.versusS. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS.

2013 INSC 18922 March 2013Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the tenant claimed Kudikidappukaran status under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Rent Controller referred the status question to the Land Tribunal, which held the tenant was only a tenant, not a Kudikidappukara

COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARDversusCAPTAIN E.M. GEORGE AND ORS.

1995 INSC 4417 January 1995Dismissed

The Cochin Devaswom Board sued tenants (including Captain E.M. George) claiming exclusive fishing and prawn‑fishing rights over lands granted under various demises, asserting a right of easement. The High Court had held that the Board’s rights were divested by the Kanam Tenancy Act and the Kerala Land Reforms Act, vest

VARIAVAN SARASWATHI AND ANR.versusEACHAMPI THEVJ AND ORS.

1992 INSC 31013 November 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Two junior members of a Tarwad redeemed a mortgage executed in 1870, obtained release in 1886 and remained in possession of the land for over fifty years. In 1967, other members of the Tarwad filed a partition suit, claiming that the junior members were tenants under Section 4A(1)(a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 196

S. APPUKUTTANversusTHUNDIYIL JANAKI AMMA & ANR.

1988 INSC 1113 January 1988Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether Explanation II‑A to clause (25) of Section 2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (as amended by Act 17 of 1972) confers Kudikidappu rights on any person who occupied a homestead or hut between 16 August 1968 and 31 January 1970, irrespective of proof of initial permission. The Court

MANCHERI PUTHUSSERI AHMED AND ORS.versusKUTHIRAVATTAM ESTATE RECEIVER

1996 INSC 104111 September 1996Dismissed

The suit land was mortgaged in 1896 and a decree for redemption was finally passed in 1960. During execution proceedings the mortgagor deposited the mortgage money and value of improvements on 14 March 1969, after which the mortgagee's right to possession ceased. The appellants argued that Section 4A of the Kerala Land

PARAMESWARAN GOVINDANversusKRISHNAN BHASKARAN AND ORS.

1992 INSC 396 February 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a mortgagor, obtained a decree for redemption of his mortgage which required payment of the mortgage amount and a sum for improvements. After depositing the decree amount, the respondent mortgagee filed applications under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 and later under Section

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search