IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 290 of 2010() --------------------- AA.122/2003 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA OA.165/2001 of LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ----------------------------------------- C.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, PONNARA HOUSE, T.C.16/735, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- * P.MADHAVAN NAIR, MAEENAKSHI MANDIRAM, TC.16/601, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * - ADDL R2: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNALULAM IS IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT No.2 VIDE ORDER DTD.01/10/10 IN I.A.NO.2053/10 IN CRP-290/10B. (* - ADDL R2 IMPLEADED) ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.290 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of October, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha in A.A.No.122 of 2003 confirming dismissal of O.A.No.165 of 2001 of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner sought to purchase kudikidappu in respect of the disputed land under Sec.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”). That application was resisted by respondent on the ground that an earlier application in respect of the same plot filed by petitioner's fathers (O.A.No.488 of 1978) was dismissed vide order dated 19-06-1979 holding that he is not entitled to any kudikidappu and hence present application is barred by the principles of res judicata. The authorised officer submitted Ext.C1, report stating that petitioner is in possession of 2 cents in survey No.544/A2 and is staying in the hut there. Respondent filed objection to Ext.C1, report. The Land Tribunal recorded oral evidence of parties and observing that on a perusal of the records (obviously of O.A.No.488 of 1978) it is found that petitioner's father had claimed kudikidappu in respect of the same property and lost it. C.R.P.No.290 of 2010 : 2 : According to the petitioner, O.A.No.488 of 1978 was not in respect of the property regarding which present application is filed by him and hence principles of res judicata does not apply. It is also contended by learned counsel that none of the records said to be perused by the Land Tribunal (referring to O.A.No.488 of 1978) were marked in evidence and he did not get an opportunity to meet those records. Learned counsel for respondent contends that a reading of the order under challenge would show that entire records were perused by the Land Tribunal. 2. A mere perusal of records of O.A.No.488 of 1978 by the Land Tribunal is not sufficient to enter a finding that the present application is barred by res judicata as if the earlier application made by predecessor-in-interest of petitioner was in relation to the same property. It is required to be seen whether properties in respect of which O.A.No.488 of 1978 and the present application are preferred are one and the same. When a plea of res judicata is raised by the respondent, it is his responsibility to produce the relevant documents and prove the same in the manner known to law giving an opportunity to the opposite party to show how the rule of res judicata cannot be C.R.P.No.290 of 2010 : 3 : applied. That has not been done in this case. In the circumstance, the statement of the Land Tribunal that it perused the records is not by itself sufficient. Those records are not part of the evidence. 3. Under Section 103 of the Act, High Court need interfere in revision only when the lower authorities under the Act have not either considered a question of law or, wrongly decided such question of law. Here, the question of law involved is whether the Land Tribunal is justified in entering a finding regarding res judicata when the relevant documents were not introduced in evidence as provided under law. I answer the point in this way - the Land Tribunal could not have decided so. 4. In the light of the above, order of the Land Tribunal as confirmed by the Appellate Authority cannot stand and both are liable to be set aside. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: Order on O.A.No.165 of 2001 of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram as confirmed by the Appellate Authority (LR), Alappuzha in A.A.No.122 of 2003 is set aside and O.A.No.165 of 2001 is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh decision after giving both sides opportunity to adduce evidence. I C.R.P.No.290 of 2010 : 4 : make it celar that it will be open to the respondent to get certified copies of relevant records in O.A.No.488 of 1978 and prove the same in the present application as provided under law in support of his contention that the present application is barred by principles of res judicata. Land Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible at any rate within six months from receipt of a copy of this judgment after giving parties opportunity to adduce evidence. Parties shall appear before the Land Tribunal on 15-11-2010. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-