The instant suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, forcefully evicting the plaintiff from the property, from creating new documents with respect to the property and also from doing anything detrimental to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. One C.L.Mathachan, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants along with the 1st defendant, who is his wife, entered into an agreement to sell out the said property belonging to the plaintiff and one Susan P. Aliyattukudy. The plaintiff agreed to purchase 28.672 cents out of the said property and the rest by Susan.P.Aliyattukudy. The possession of the property was handed over to the purported purchasers then and there. The plaintiff had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property. The power of attorney was executed by the assignors in favour of A.K.Poulose, father of Susan.P.Aliyattukudy. However, A.K.Poulose and C.L.Mathachan expired. In the meantime, the respondents were willing to carry out the alleged sale act, but asked for more, although the whole amount was paid to them beforehand. In the foregoing circumstances, the complaint before the police came to light and finally the above-mentioned complaint was filed. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, the second appeal. 

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

The learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Sajan Vargheese.K, submitted that in a suit for injunction the material question arising for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of suit and the plaintiff has valid cause of action to institute the suit and further submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to protect her possession in accordance with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 

Sri.Sajeevan, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that once the Government land is characterized as an assigned land, the same continues and remains to be an assigned land. The plaintiff who allegedly came into possession on the strength of an agreement for sale is bound by the provisions contemplated under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960  and any contract for sale between the predecessor of the defendant and the plaintiff is void under the Act and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964.  

The Kerala High Court referred to Papaiah v. State of Karnataka & others [(1996) 10 SCC 533], where the supreme court  considered the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Assignment of land having been made in furtherance thereof, any alienation, in its contravention, would be not only in violation of the constitutional policy but also opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. Thereby, any alienation made in violation thereof is void and the purchaser does not get any valid right, title or interest thereunder.

The Court opined that a landless poor person, who purchased the land after obtaining permission under the Act and the Rules, is not entitled to transfer the land ignoring the provisions contemplated under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In the case on hand the defendants were aware of the fact that the land could not be alienated for a period of 10 years. Hence they fixed a 10 years period for its performance and therefore, the assignee is bound by the terms thereunder hence the alienation being void. 

The court held that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in respect of an agreement for sale which is void in nature. And the suit was dismissed accordingly.