B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by him.
(2.) The suit property was mortgaged by one Raman Pillai in favour of Madhav Pillai. Plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the daughter of Raman Pillai. First defendant in the suit is the assignee of the mortgagee's right whereas defendants 2 to 5 are his children. The plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage. The defendant pleaded inter alia that by virtue of Section 4-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, he should be deemed to be a tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure. Trial Court upheld his plea on the finding that he has been holding the land comprised in the mortgage for a continuous period of not less than 50 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 as contemplated by Section 4-A. On that basis, it dismissed the suit. Appellate Court affirmed, the said view and dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff thereupon preferred the Second Appeal which too has been dismissed following the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Parameshwaran Pillai v. Narayanan Nair, 1976 Ker LT 341.
(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant submitted that the land in question, of an extent of 12 cents, is not an agricultural land but a house site (with a building thereon) situated in the heart of Trivandrum city. Since the suit land is not an agricultural land, Kerala Land Reforms Act has no application. the courts below were, therefore, in error in extending the. benefit of Section 4-A of the Act to the plaintiff. In support of his contention, he relied upon certain decisions, which we shall presently refer.;