IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 826 of 2011() --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.329/2004 Dated 29/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/LEGAL HEIRS OF APPELLANT/ LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT/LEGAL HEIRS OF DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NANI, W/O. LATE ARUMUGHAN, MANNATHUPURA, (KUNDUMARAPURA), KADUKKANKUNNAM AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE ARUMUGHAN, MANNATHUPURA, (KUNDUMARAPURA), KADUKKANKUNNAM AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. 3. SAROJINI, W/O. BALAN & D/O. LATE ARUMUGHAN, MANNATHUPURA, (KUNDUMARAPURA), KADUKKANKUNNAM AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT KAVATHU HOUSE, VILAYODI, THEKKEGRAMAM P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. INDIRA DEVI, W/O. CHANDRAN & D/O. LATE ARUMUGHAN, MANNATHUPURA, (KUNDUMARAPURA), KADUKKANKUNNAM AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT RP.No. 826 of 2011() VADAKKANPATTIL HOUSE, NEELIKKADU, PODUSSERRY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. BHASKARAN, S/O. LATE ARUMUGHAN, MANNATHUPURA, (KUNDUMARAPURA), KADUKKANKUNNAM AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------- THANKA, D/O. MAYANKUTTY, KADUKKAMKUNNAM AMSOM & POST, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISRICT. BY ADV. P. CHANDRASEKHARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... R.P.No.826 of 2011 in RSA No.329 of 2004 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 ORDER Appeal was disposed on 29.3.2011, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The review petition is filed contending that though a cross objection was filed challenging the finding of Land Tribunal rendered under Section 125(3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, cross objection was not properly considered by the first appellate court and therefore this court is bound to consider the same and it was not considered. The other grounds taken are the grounds which are originally taken in the appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that though the finding of Land Tribunal is binding on the trial court, it is not binding on the first appellate court and appellant had filed a cross objection challenging the finding of Land Tribunal and cross objection was dismissed by the first appellate court without proper application RP 826/2011 2 of mind. The argument of the learned counsel is that first appellate court dismissed the cross objection in one sentence and in such circumstances, this court should have admitted the appeal. This court has already considered the correctness of the findings of Land Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the judgment. The scope of a review petition cannot be equated to that of an appeal. If the legal heirs of appellant are aggrieved by the finding of this court or the findings of Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, the remedy is to challenge the decree and not review petition. Review petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk