IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 291 of 2010()
1. OVINAKATH RAMLA, D/O.FATHIBI @
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.CHENOLI KAMMANATTE CHANDRA PRABHA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SREEHARI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :23/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.291 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010.
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of judgment of the appellate authority
(LR), Kannur (for short, “the Appellate Authority”) in A.A.No.20 of 2008 arising
from the order passed by the Land Tribunal (Special Tahsildar (LR),
Kuthuparamba (for short, “the Land Tribunal”) in SM.No.1413 of 2006 assigning
landlords’ right in favour of respondent. Grievance of petitioner who was the
respondent in S.M.Proceedings and appellant before the Appellate Authority is
that she was not given sufficient time to adduce evidence and that the copy of
partition deed No.2769 of 1983 given to the Special Revenue Inspector who
submitted report before the Land Tribunal was not considered by the Land
Tribunal or the Appellate Authority. Nor was objection to the report of Special
Revenue Inspector considered by the said authorities and hence the decision of
the authorities below are vitiated. It is contended by learned counsel that a
perusal of copy of partition deed No.2769 of 1983 would show that
predecessors-in-interest of petitioner were holding the disputed property from
the year 1956 onwards. In response it is contended by learned counsel for
respondent No.1 that inspite of sufficient opportunity given by the Land Tribunal
as well as Appellate Authority no evidence was given by petitioner in support of
CRP No.291/2010
2
her claim of possession of the suit property. Evidence produced by respondent
No.1 before the Land Tribunal show that her predecessors-in-interest were in
possession and enjoyment of the property from 1928 onwards.
2. The dispute is concerning tenancy over 17.97 cents in T.S.No.404
of Kannur Karar desom comprised in Kannur Village. Respondent No.1
claimed that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit property as
cultivating tenant as per partition deed No.3415 of 2006. She claimed that the
property belonged in jenm to one Moosakutty as per document No.2820 of 1928.
From the said Moosakutty kuzhikanam right was acquired by one Damodaran
and from him as per document No.503 of 1930 one Rohini acquired that right.
Rohini gifted her right to her children as per document No.1498 of 1944. In the
year 1971 one of the children of Rohini (one of the donees), Balakrishnan
assigned his right to his brother, Ramachandran as per document No.33 of
1971. Sreedharan, another son of Rohini expired and his right devolved on
Rohini. Rohini and her son, Vasudevan released their right in the property in
favour of Suseela as per document No.731 of 1971. After death of Suseela her
right devolved on Respondent No.1 and others. While so, there was a suit for
partition among respondent No.1 and others as O.S.No.244 of 1977. Thereafter
there was partition as per document No.3415 of 2006 as per which disputed
property came into the exclusive possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1.
The Special Revenue Inspector, the authorised officer has reported that his
enquiry revealed that respondent No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the
CRP No.291/2010
3
property as cultivating tenant. A report was submitted by the Village officer
which also was to the effect that respondent No.1 is in possession and
enjoyment of the property as cultivating tenant. As against the above petitioner
did not adduce any evidence before the Land Tribunal. It is based on the
evidence let in by respondent No.1 and the reports referred to above that Land
Tribunal concluded that respondent No.1 is the cultivating tenant in possession
and enjoyment of the 17.97 cents. That order was challenged before Appellate
Authority. It is seen from the judgment that inspite of giving about two years’
time petitioner did not produce any evidence before Appellate Authority to
support her claim of possession. It is in the above circumstances that Appellate
Authority confirmed order of Land Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
3. Though it is contended by learned counsel that petitioner has
preferred objection to the report of Special Revenue Inspector, that was not
considered. It is pointed out that it is not stated wherefrom Special Revenue
Inspector got information that respondent No.1 is the cultivating tenant of the
suit property.
4. So far as the objection allegedly preferred by the petitioner even if it
is assumed that such objection is preferred is concerned, mere filing of the
objection is not sufficient. I stated that in none of the lower Forums petitioner
tried to substantiate her claim of possession. Report of the authorised officer
can be accepted as evidence. Special Revenue Inspector has reported that
CRP No.291/2010
4
(as on the date of his inspection) respondent No.1 is the cultivating tenant in
possession. In these circumstances I do not find reason to reject the report of
the Special Revenue Inspector. It is a case where inspite of giving sufficient time
petitioner has not availed that opportunity to produce any evidence which would
support her claim of possession of the property. In the circumstances Appellate
Authority was correct in finding in favour of tenancy pleaded by respondent No.1
and rejecting claim of petitioner. There is little reason to interfere.
Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed.
I.A.No.1333 of 2010 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks