IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 583 of 2009() --------------------- AA.62/2000 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA S.M.NO.36/1977 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, PALA. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.1 ---------------------------------------------- KUNJAN SIVARAMAN, THERUVATHIL,KEYYOOR, BHARANANGANAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENTS/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 TO 9 AND APPELLANTS 2 TO 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARIAMMA JOSEPH,W/O.LATE JOSEPH, KANJIRATHUM KUNNEL,KAYYOOR P.O. 2. ACHAMMA CHANDY,D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MADATHIL HOUSE,ULLANADU P.O. 3. SISTER:TESSY MARIA,S.A.B.S., C/O.MOTHER SUPERIOR,ADERATION CONVENT, MUTTOM P.O.,IDUKKI. 4. K.J.MICHEL,S/O.MARIAMMA JOSEPH, KANJIRATHUM KUNNEL,KEYYOOR,P.O., (RETD.TEACHER,ST.SEBASTIAN HIGH SCHOOL,KADANADU). 5. GEORGE JOSEPH,S/O.MARIAMMA JOSEPH, KANJIRATHUM KUNNEL,KEYYOOR P.O., (PRINCIPAL,ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, ARUVITHURA). 6. THANKAMMA,W/O.P.J.SEBASTIAN, PULIMMOOTTIL HOUSE,THOONILAVU P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 7. JESSY,W/O.N.L.JOSEKUTTY, NEDIYAKALA,CHERUVENDOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 8. LITTY,W/O.SEBASTIAN MATHEW, GANAPATHY PLACKAL,POOVARANI P.O.,KOTTAYAM. CRP 583/09 9. ELACHI LAKSHMI,PULIMACKAL, KOLLAPPALLY,KADANADU. 10. KUNJAN SANKARAN, KIZHAKKETHERUVATHIL,MELUKAVUMATTOM. 11. PAPPY,S/O.KUNJAN GOVINDAN, KIZHAKKETHERUVATHIL,KARUMANNU. 12. ELACHI PARU,W/O.NEELAKANTAN, KARIMKUNNAM. 13. ELACHI GOURI,W/O.O.NARAYANAN, THANNICKAL HOUSE,UPPUTHARA,AYYAPPANKOVIL. 14. GOVINDAN GOPALAN, KIZHAKKETHERUVATHIL,KIZHAKKUMATTOM, BHARANANGANAM. 15. GOVINDAN KUTTAPPAN, KIZHAKKETHERUVATHIL,KIZHAKKUMATTOM, BHARANANGANAM. 16. KALYANI KUTTAPPAN, VELANKUNNEL,PLASANAL,THALAPPALAM. 17. KUNJUKUTTY MADHAVAN, VELANKUNNEL,PLASANAL,THALAPPALAM. 18. P.K.SARADA, PULIMAKKAL,KADANADU,KOLLAPPALLY. 19. AMMINI KESAVAN, PALACKAL,KADANADU. 20. ALLYAMMA KRISHNAN KUTTY, KUNNUMPURATH,THIDANADU P.O. 21. REMANI ASOKAN, URUMBIL,MEENACHIL. 22. P.K.SUBHA, PULIMACKAL,KADANADU. 23. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.583 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10th November, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 9.7.2009 in A.A.No.62 of 2000 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha. Petitioner is the first appellant in the above appeal. Certificate issued by the Land Tribunal to the predecessor of the respondents recognising him as tenant having fixity of tenure over 36 cents of land in Survey No.661/6 of Bharananganam village in Meenachal taluk has been challenged by the petitioner and some others contending that their predecessor, Elachi, was the title holder of the property and it was outstanding on a registered mortgage executed by her as security for a sum of Rs.300/-. The mortgage was executed by Elachi in favour of one Konni Ittiadhi under the registered mortgage deed No.6059/1118 M E and by virtue of an assignment under deed No.2038 of 1959, the predecessor of the respondents got possession and enjoyment of the property, and his status was that of a mortgagee of the property alone was the case of the appellants. The Appellate Authority, on the materials placed, found that a suit for redemption filed against the predecessor of the CRP No. 583/09 - 2 - defendant as O.S.No.190 of 1984 had been dismissed on 15.12.1989. An application moved for restoring the suit had also been dismissed. The Appellate Authority has entered a finding that in view of the bar of limitation, the appellants have lost their right to redeem the property even if they had any right over the property. Having regard to the year of execution of the mortgage deed and also the subsequent assignment in the backdrop that a suit filed earlier for redemption had been dismissed with no further material produced before the Appellate Authority to substantiate that the petitioner has any subsisting right to redeem the property, I find that no interference with the order passed by the Appellate Authority is warranted in the case. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE