IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 1310 of 1998(E) 1. AYSHA P.V. ... Petitioner Vs 1. BARIKKAT AMU ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN 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
petitioners.
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.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
——————————-
C.R.P.NO.1310 OF 1998 ()
———————————–
O R D E R
16th day of February, 2010