IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 1310 of 1998(E) ----------------------- AA.342/1984 of A.A.(LR), THALASSERY OA.2497/1976 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KANHANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS 2 AND 3:: --------------------- 1.AYSHA P.V. 2.KHADEEJA P.V. BOTH ARE CHILDREN OF ALEEMA UMMA, RESIDING AT ATHINHAL IN AJANUR VILLAGE P.O., MANIKOTH, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 9 AND THE STATE: --------------- 1.BARIKKAT AMU (DIED) (DELETED) 2.BARIKKAT ALI (DIED) (DELETED) 3.ALEEMA CHILDREN OF MOHAMMAD HAJI, RESIDING AT CHITTARI VILLAGE, AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK. 4.M.T.ASYA 5.ANDUKKA 6.MOIDU (DIED) 7.ABBAS 8.ZUHARA RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 ARE THE CHILDREN OF MOVVAL THOTTIYIL DAINU, RESIDING AT CHAMUNDIKKUNNU IN CHITTARI VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK. 9.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRP.1310/98 ADDL.R10: NABEESA,W/O.MOIDU, RESIDING AT CHAMMUNDIKUNNU, CHITTARI VILLAGE P.O., HOSDURG TALUK. R11: FERASAMA (MINOR) R12: SAHINA (MINOR) R13: RAHINA (MINOR) R14: HASIK (MINOR) MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NABEESA ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R10 TO R14 AS L.R.S OF DECEASED R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.12.2007 ON C.M.P.NO.4200/00. R1 AND R2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ORDER DATED 18.3.2008 ON C.M.P.NO.4202/2000. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R4,R5 & R8 SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R10-14 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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