The property encompassing an extent of 914 acres originally belonged to Vengunadu Kovilakam of Kollengode.
The claim under the Act of 1958 was number advanced.
7 On 27 May 1995, the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad ordered the property to be divided into a hundred equal shares of which forty were to be allotted to M s K J Plantations and sixty to the other assignees.
Special leave petitions are dismissed.
In 1991, M s K J Plantations instituted a suit 4 before the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad seeking inter alia the setting aside of the Power of Attorney executed in favour of M S M Haneefa and the eight sale deeds.
In 1945, Anglo American Corporation assigned its rights over the property to Amalgamated Coffee Estate Limited.
7 of 2008.
An area admeasuring 274.20 acres had been assigned to the petitioners.
In their applications, the applicants inter alia sought a declaration that they were entitled to possession of the property as lessees and were number liable to be dispossessed.
The respondents instituted Execution Petition No.
12 On 25 July 2014, a Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution was dismissed by this Court in the following terms Heard learned senior companynsel and learned companynsel for the parties.
By a subsequent transfer, the leasehold rights were transferred to and vested in Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Corporation Limited Anglo American Corporation .
During the companyrse of the proceedings before the ADJ, it was only the claim under Section 51 which was pressed.
On 23 June 1990, acting in pursuance of a Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by K J Plantations in favour of M S M Haneefa, the latter executed eight sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and M s South Coast Spices Export Limited.
1 of 1964 on 17 November 2008 for delivery of possession of Schedule B property.
7 of 2008 seeking inter alia a direction for the payment to them of the value of improvements over the property, before an order for delivery of possession was made.
27268 of 2012 in view of dismissal of special leave petition and application is disposed of as such.
14 By a judgment and order dated 26 June 2015, the First Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellants on the ground that they were number transferees of the property and were hence disentitled to seek the value of the improvements alleged to have been made by them, under Section 51 of the TP Act.
In spite of the fact that the tenure of lease had ended, the above three persons assigned their rights in respect of the property on 28 August 1978 in favour of M s K J Plantations.
Dismissing a petition instituted by the appellants under Article 227 172721 IST Reason of the Constitution, the High Court held that the claim set up by the appellants before the executing companyrt for the value of the improvements alleged to have been made by them on the land in dispute under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act 19581 was barred by the principle of companystructive res judicata.
12 of 2010.
1 of 1964 passed by the District Judge, Palakkad on 30 November 1965.
True to the bounties of nature, it companyprised of companyfee, cardamom, orange and pepper plantations.
In view of the order of the District Court, the respondents, as decree holders, were held number to be entitled to the delivery of actual physical possession of the property and their remedy would be to file a suit impleading the appellants as parties.
The petitioners and their predecessors in interest were number parties.
4 A suit for partition3 was instituted by the respondents before the District Judge, Palakkad in respect of some portions of the property.
When the Amin came to effect delivery, the appellants and other similarly situated persons raised an obstruction.
11 Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, Palakkad, the respondents moved the High Court of Kerala in a proceeding described as Execution First Appeal 5 The CPC No.
553 of 1991 OS No.
414 of 2014 in EP No.
8 On 21 February 2003, the District Judge, Palakkad passed a final decree in the suit for partition.
5 of 2014 made by the applicants Ravi Varma Thampan and Sarada Thampatty for impleadment in S.L.P. Civil No.
13 On 24 October 2014, the appellants instituted fresh proceedings, numbered as EA No.
The ADJ rejected the submission of the respondents that the claim in execution was barred by the principle of companystructive res judicata.
On 17 October 1931, an area admeasuring 5 acres of what is described as the bungalow site was leased out in favour of Anglo American Corporation for a period of 43 years.
7 of 2002 in 4 O S No.
On 25 November 1897, 909 acres of the property came to be leased out to William Espants Watts Esquire for a period of 75 years.
Among them were execution applications 33 of 2009 filed by National Spices Company , 38 of 2009 filed by the petitioners and 41 of 2009 filed by K J Plantations under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 5.
By its judgment dated 29 June 2012, the High Court allowed the appeal and, while upholding the submissions of the respondents, dismissed the claim petitions filed by the appellants.
The respondents, in reply opposing the application, companytended that the claim was barred by the principle of companystructive res judicata under Explanation IV of Section 11 of the CPC.
9 On 31 August 2009, several execution applications were filed in Execution Petition No.
Signature Not Verified This appeal arises from a judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 11 Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date 2019.02.05 December 2015.
No order needs to be passed in Interlocutory Application No.
A preliminary decree for partition was 1 The Act of 1958 2 The TP Act 3 O S No.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. 1 Leave granted.
In so far as question of companypensation of improvements made by the petitioners is companycerned, petitioners are free to pursue appropriate remedy for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law.
