Aysha P.V vs Barikkat Amu on 16 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Aysha P.V vs Barikkat Amu on 16 February, 2010




CRP.No. 1310 of 1998(E)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER


 Dated :16/02/2010

 O R D E R
               S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                 C.R.P.NO.1310 OF 1998 ()
         Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010

                           O R D E R

The revision is filed under Section 103 of the Kerala

Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Land

Reforms Act’ against the judgment dated 13.3.1997 passed by

the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur. The appellate authority

in the above appeal has confirmed the order passed by the

Land Tribunal No.I, Kanhangad holding that the deceased

1st respondent is entitled to kudikidappu right over ten cents

of land in R.Sy.No.28/7 of Chittari village. The revision

petitioners are the legal heirs of the appellant, namely,

Aleema Umma, who was not made a party in the O.A. filed by

the deceased 1st respondent. Pending appeal, the appellant

died and the present petitioners were brought in as additional

appellants 2 and 3. The applicant in the O.A., namely, Movval

Thottiyil Dainu, had also passed away and her legal heirs had

been brought in as additional respondents 5 to 9 in the appeal

C.R.P.1310/98 2

and they are ranked as respondents 4 to 8 in the present

revision also. The main grievance canvassed by the appellant

in the appeal was that though she was the owner of the

property covered by the proceedings, she was not made a

party but some one in her name was impleaded as landlord in

the proceedings. The appeal was preferred with a petition to

condone delay by the third party appellant canvassing a case

that she got the knowledge of the order only long after

passing of such orders by the Land Tribunal. The delay in

preferring the appeal was condoned by the appellate authority

after being satisfied that the appellant is a third party. The

appeal was disposed of after hearing both sides expressing a

view that the appellant was a party to the proceedings, and so

much so, she is bound by the order passed by the Land

Tribunal. The judgment so rendered by the appellate

authority is patently erroneous and is liable to be interfered

with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is the main

challenge canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision


C.R.P.1310/98 3

2. At the time of hearing, it has been brought to my

notice that the appellant had filed a civil suit claiming a

decree of injunction over a property having an extent of 33

cents, which admittedly included part of the kudikidappu

holding claimed by respondents 4 to 8, the legal heirs of the

applicant in the O.A. The records relating to that case had

been produced before the appellate authority by the above

said respondents. Indisputably, the suit filed by the appellant

had been disposed of on the basis of the concessions made by

the appellant recognising the right of the additional

respondents over five cents, which formed part of their

kudikidappu holding. In respect of the plaint property in the

above suit, after excluding the five cents alone, a decree of

injunction was granted in favour of the appellant. When that

be the case, it follows that the challenge canvassed against the

appellant impeaching the right of respondents 4 to 8, the legal

heirs of the applicant in the O.A. cannot be given any merit.

True, the appellate authority had gone wrong in holding that

the appellant was a party to the proceedings in the O.A., but

that is not of much significance, where it is seen that the

C.R.P.1310/98 4

appellant had recognised the kudikidappu right of the

predecessor of the respondents 4 to 8 atleast over a portion of

the land covered by the original application considered by the

Land Tribunal. That being so, the question whether the

appellant or someone else was the landlord does not call for

consideration in the revision. Suffice to state, that the

revision filed against the judgment of the appellate authority

does not call for any interference. Revision is closed.





C.R.P.NO.1310 OF 1998 ()



16th day of February, 2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *