IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 83 of 2008() -------------------- AA.20/2006 of A.A.(LR),THRISSUR SM.113/2005 of LAND TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/CULTIVATING TENANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VYSIAR IYYATHUTTY @ IMMU, W/O.THAMARATH MOHAMMAD @ BAPPUTTY HAJI, KARIAVATTOM VILLAGE, P.O.MANNARMALA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.S.SMITHA (PARAKKAL) RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT F-FORM PARTY/RESPONDENT LANDLORD: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. VYSIAR SHIHABELI, S/O.VYSIAR MUHAMMED, P.O.MANNARMALA. 2. KUNJATHUTTY @ IMMU, D/O.VYSIAR MOIDHEENKUTTY HAJI, MANNARMALA P.O. 3. KUNJATHUTTY, W/O.VYSIAR HAMSA HAJI, MANNARMALA P.O. 4. VYSIAR AMINA, D/O.HAMSA HAJI, MANNARMALA P.O. 5. ALI, KARIAVATTOM VILLAGE, MANNARMALA P.O 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.261/08 IN C.R.P.NO.83/2008 DISMISSED 29/01/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 83 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority, Thrissur in A.A.20/06 whereby the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. A suo mottu proceedings was initiated as S.M.113/05 with a proposal to assign 79 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.10/1, 2 in favour of the present revision petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings there was a intervener. According to the revision petitioner her husband has purchased this property in the year 1995 and there is a recital in the document that he had obtained oral lease of the land in the year 1963 from the landlord late Vysiar Moideenkutty Haji on an annual rent of Rs.5/- and it is that right which has been transferred in favour of the husband of the revision petitioner. Some documents are produced to prove possession from 1995-96 to 2005-2006. One Vysiar Iyyathutty who is impleaded filed a F-Form Application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal CRP NO. 83 of 2008 -:2:- after consideration of the materials found that the revision petitioner is entitled to tenancy right. It is against that decision Shihabali filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority considered the matter. According to the appellant therein he got the property by virtue of a document in the year 1997 and on the date of the assignment in his favour the assignee was in possession by virtue of a document of the year 1966 and the other person is claiming tenancy right under a document of the year 1950. Now by virtue of a partition deed etc. which is referred to in the judgment, ultimately the property was purchased by him as per document No.3764/97. The appellant also contended that he had instituted a suit for injunction before the Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna and an injunction has been granted. Therefore the Appellate Authority found that the materials available are not sufficient to find out the tenancy in favour of the revision petitioner and therefore set aside the matter and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. It is against that decision the present revision is preferred. CRP NO. 83 of 2008 -:3:- 2. I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the appellate Court. Both the revision petitioner and the respondents are claiming tenancy right under different persons by virtue of assignment deeds and so the question would be who is the person really entitled to the property and whose document will confer the title on him and so the tenancy has to be assigned in whose favour. Therefore I concur with the finding of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the C.R.P., but make it clear that both the parties must be permitted to produce sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Land Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law after hearing all concerned. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-