IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 C.R.P.No. 1002 of 2000(A) ----------------------- ( TLB(K.)220/1977 of TALUK LAND BOARD, KOZHIKODE ) REVN. PETITIONERS: ------------------------------- 1. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, W/O. LATE K.C. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR RESIDING IN PEACHANGOTTU HOUSE, CHEROOPU, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O. -DO- RESIDING AT -DO- 3. DHANNYA, D/O. -DO- RESIDING IN ULLATTIL HOUSE, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR(MOHANKUMAR ASSOCIATES) RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI SURESH. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, ALONG WITH C.R.P NO. 1509 OF 2000 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 2077 OF 2000 IN C.R.P.NO. 1002 OF 2000 DISMISSED. 11.01.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. Nos. 1002 & 1509 OF 2000 ................................................................................... Dated this the 11th January , 2008 O R D E R Both these revisions arise out of the order dated 28.01.2000 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Kozhikode in TLB.(K)220/77. 2. The assessee in the case was K.C. Krishnankutty Nair. The Taluk Land Board passed the final order dated 25.02.1983 holding that the assessee held a total extent of 17 acres 42 1/3 cents of land. The assessee was directed to surrender an extent of 2.29 1/3 standard acres equivalent to 4.56 ½ ordinary acres. While fixing the total extent of the land held by the assessee , half share of Pankajakshi Amma, wife of the assessee in a total extent of 12.45 acres covered by the gift deed executed by her father in the year 1961 was also taken into account. The gift deed was executed by Ramankutty Kurup, the father in law of the assessee in favour of Pankajakshi Amma and Santhakumari Amma, the children of the donor. The donor had three other children. 3. O.S.No. 240 of 1977 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode was filed by Santhakumari Amma, one of the donees under the gift deed of 1961 executed by Ramankutty Kurup, for partition claiming half right in the property covered by the gift deed . The parties to the suit are Ramankutty Kurup and his children, Pankajakshi Amma, Bhanumathi Amma, Sarangadhara Kurup and Usha Kumari . The defendants in the suit contended that the gift was not acted upon. The trial court passed a preliminary decree dated 13.02.1980 holding that the gift deed was acted upon. The contentions raised by the defendants were not accepted and it was held that Santhakumari Amma had half right in the property covered by the gift deed. Against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.240 of 1977 , the defendants therein filed A.S.No. C.R.P. No. 1002 & 1509 OF 2000 2 104 of 1980 before the High Court. The appeal was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the judgment dated 05.03.1990. On appeal to the Division Bench as A.F.A.No. 71 of 1990, the judgment passed by the learned single Judge was confirmed. Though a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, that was also dismissed. Thus, the judgment of the trial court in O.S.No. 240 of 1977 has become final. 4. Against the order dated 25.02.1983 passed by the Taluk Land Board, the assessee, Krishnankutty Nair, filed C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 before the High Court. The C.R.P. was disposed of by judgment dated 23.06.1987. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “ 2. Ramankutty Kurup had gifted item No.11 to 17 and 23 to 28 in the draft declaration, to two of his daughters, Pankajakshi Amma, wife of the petitioner, and Santhakumari Amma, the 4th respondent. Though the gift was attempted to be cancelled by a document executed fifteen years later, the Taluk Land Board upheld the gift and found that the petitioner is in possession of excess land. Under the gift, the petitioner is entitled to half right, the other half right belongs to the 4th respondent. Having found that the gift is valid and that the petitioner is entitled to half rights in these properties, the Taluk Land Board refused to take possession of any extent from these lands, on the ground that the petitioner had only an undivided share in these properties and there was a subsisting claim of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed. Santhakumari Amma has got herself impleaded. I have heard counsel for both sides. 3. It is only because of the gift which has been upheld that the petitioner is bound to surrender some land. If he is asked to surrender any land from these gifted properties, he cannot have any grievance. The 4th respondent is only anxious that her title and possession in respect of the gift properties should be maintained. Considering all C.R.P. No. 1002 & 1509 OF 2000 3 facts, therefore, it is sufficient if it is directed that for the purpose of this revision,the gift will be valid as found by the Taluk Land Board and the 4th respondent will be entitled to half share in the properties. She will identify the half share which she is entitled to, demarcate the land and file a statement before the Taluk Land Board. The balance extent covered by the gift deed will be the property owned and possessed by the petitioner for the purpose of the ceiling case. The petitioner can opt to surrender any extent from this portion to the Government and the Government will be found to receive that land towards the extent liable to be surrendered by the petitioner. The Government cannot object to the petitioner surrendering that portion. The extent of land to be surrendered by the petitioner, as found by the Taluk Land Board, namely, 4.56 ½ acres, is confirmed. The property to be delivered by the petitioner firstly will be the extent covered by the gift deed which falls to his half share and which will be demarcated separately after the half share due to the 4th respondent is identified and separated by her as per the order in this revision. If more than 4.56 ½ acres fall to the share of the petitioner, the petitioner would be at the liberty to retain that portion.” 5. Though R.P.No. 14 of 1989 was filed by the Taluk Land Board and the State of Kerala in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983, the same was dismissed by order dated 21.02.1995. Santhakumari Amma did not comply with the order dated 23.06.1987 in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983. The excess land was not taken possession of. Santhakumari Amma filed a statement before the Taluk Land Board stating that the appeal arising out of O.S.No.240 of 1977 was pending and therefore the order in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 could not be implemented. The ceiling case was protracted for considerable length of time by filing statements one after other. 6. The Taluk Land Board issued notice to Santhakumari Amma and Krishnankutty Nair. Santhakumari Amma filed a statement stating that she was unable C.R.P. No. 1002 & 1509 OF 2000 4 to file a statement as directed by the High Court in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 since the appeal from O.S.No. 240 of 1977 was pending. The assessee, Krishnankutty Nair expired and notices were issued to his legal representatives, viz., Pankajakshi Amma and her children. A report of the authorised officer was called for. After receipt of the report, nobody raised any objection to the said report. The Taluk Land Board stated in the present order dated 28.01.2000 that though the case was adjourned several times for objections, nobody filed any objection. 7. The Taluk Land Board thereafter considered as to how the order in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 could be implemented . Santhakumari Amma filed a statement stating that O.S.No. 329 of 1987 was filed by Padmavathy Amma , wife of Ramankutty Kurup for partition and a preliminary decree was passed therein. In that suit, the plaintiff, Padmavathy Amma contended that the gift deed executed by Ramankutty Kurup in 1961 in favour of Pankajakshmi Amma and Santhakumari Amma enured to the benefit of thavazhy and that all the members of thavazhy are entitled to the shares. A preliminary decree was passed on 17.01.1992 holding that the plaintiff in O.S.No. 329 of 1987 is entitled to 1/6th share in the property covered by the gift deed of 1961. It is also stated that a final decree was passed on compromise on 16.10.1992 in O.S.No. 329 of 1987. 8. The Taluk Land Board considered all these contentions and held that the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 329 of 1987 would not affect the decision in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 . It was also noticed by the Taluk Land Board that in O.S.No. 329 of 1987, which was filed after the decision in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983, the Government was not made a party. The Taluk Land Board concluded that the order dated 23.06.1987 in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 is liable to be implemented. Accordingly, C.R.P. No. 1002 & 1509 OF 2000 5 directions were issued in the order dated 28.01.2000 passed by the Taluk Land Board, to take an extent of 2.29 1/3 standard acres as excess land in the manner indicated in the order. The said order is under challenge in C.R.P.No. 1002 of 2000 filed by Pankajakshi Amma and in C.R.P.No. 1509 of 2000 filed by Santhakumari Amma . 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the decision in O.S.No. 329 of 1987 is final and conclusive as between the parties therein and therefore in the ceiling proceedings, only the share of Pankajakshi Amma to the extent decreed in O.S.No. 329 of 1987 could be taken into account. It was also contended that in the ceiling proceedings and in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983, the wife and children of Ramankutty Kurup were not parties. The revision petitioners also contended that in O.S.No. 240 of 1977, Padmavathy Amma, wife of Ramankutty Kurup was not a party and therefore, the decision in that suit is not binding on Padmavathy Amma, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 329 of 1987. The contention of the petitioners is that whatever may be the order passed earlier , as per the final decree in O.S.No. 329 of 1987, the shares allotted to the sharers therein could not be the subject matter of the ceiling case initiated against Krishnankutty Nair, the son in law of Ramankutty Kurup. It is pointed out that, at best, only Pankajakshi Amma and Santhakumari Amma would be bound by the order in the ceiling case and by the order in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983. 10. I am not in a position to accept the contention raised by the petitioners. The Taluk Land Board directed the assessee, Krishnankutty Nair to surrender the excess land . In computing the total extent held by the assessee, the half right in the property held by the assessee's wife Pankajakshi Amma under the gift deed was also taken into account. That Pankajakshi Amma had half right in the property covered by the gift deed of 1961 has become final by order in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 . C.R.P. No. 1002 & 1509 OF 2000 6 Santhakumari Amma was a party to the Civil Revision Petition No. 1799 of 1983 and therefore, she is bound by the ceiling proceedings and the order in the Revision Petition. She did not comply with the order dated 23.06.1987 in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983. By the decision in O.S.No. 240 of 1977 , the gift deed executed by Ramankutty Kurup in favour of Pankajakshi Amma and Santhakumari Amma was held to be legal and valid and binding on all the children of Ramankutty Kurup who were parties to O.S.No. 240 of 1977. It is true that Padmavathi Amma, the widow of Ramankutty Kurup was not a party to O.S. No. 240 of 1977. In the judgment in O.S.No. 329 of 1987, it is observed that Padmavathi Amma is not bound by the judgment in O.S.No. 240 of 1977. The question as to whether Padmavathi Amma would be entitled to 1/6 right in the extent of the property covered by the gift deed would not have any impact on implementation of the final order dated 25.02.1983 passed by the Taluk Land Board and the order in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 dated 23.06.1987. Implementation of that order would not affect the share declared in favour of Padmavathi Amma because even after deducting ½ right of Pankajakshi Amma out of the property, there would be balance extent of land , viz., half right. The contention raised by the petitioners, if accepted, would have the result of upsetting the earlier orders passed by the Taluk Land Board and the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 . 11. In this Civil Revision Petition, I am not expressing any view as to whether the children of Ramankutty Kurup are bound by the judgment in O.S.No. 240 of 1977 and on that ground whether they are dis-entitled to take recourse to the decree in O.S.No. 329 of 1987 since it is stated that the claim petitions filed by some of them are pending before the Taluk Land Board. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the C.R.P. No. 1002 & 1509 OF 2000 7 well considered order passed by the Taluk Land Board . The Civil Revision Petitions lack merits and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Shri T.R. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.R.P. 1509 of 2000 submitted that the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to file a statement before the Taluk Land Board pointing out the property which could be taken possession of , so that the petitioner could salvage the property allotted to her as per the final decree in O.S.No. 329 of 1987. This prayer is opposed by the learned Government Pleader contending that the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1509 of 2000 is a person who did not obey the orders in C.R.P.No. 1799 of 1983 . Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a leniency can be shown to the petitioner in C.R.P. 1509 of 2000 provided a statement is filed by her before the Taluk Land Board within a period of six weeks from today. If such a statement is filed by her within six weeks before the Taluk Land Board, the Taluk Land Board shall consider the question as to how the order could be implemented without affecting the interest of Santhakumari Amma , the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1509 of 2000 to the extent possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is made clear that this direction shall not be treated as a direction interfering with the conclusions arrived at by the Taluk Land Board that excess land is liable to be taken possession of. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk C.R.P. No. 1002 & 1509 OF 2000 8 K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................ C.R.P. Nos 1002 & 1509 of 2000. ......................................................... Dated this the 11th January, 2008 O R D E R lk