IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 973 of 2007() --------------------- CC.1732/1973 of TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER: CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------------------------- MANUAL AMALDAS, S/O. PONNAPPAS MANIYAKKARAN, KOZHIPPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED: R4. BENEDICT BRITTO, S/O.PONNUPPAS MANIAKARAN, NALLUR, KOZHIPPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 14/12/2007 IN I.A.NO.3160/07) R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.2780/2007 IN C.R.P.NO.973/2007 DISMISSED 12/02/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P. No.973 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur in C.C.No.1732/73. The revision petitioner herein is one Manual Amaldas. It is the contention that there was a partition in the family in the year 1973 executed by the father and the children and the contention was that it has to be treated as a gift and therefore it will not be an invalid transfer. Such a proposition came up for consideration only on the ground that by virtue of an amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the Government validated all gifts in favour of the children upto 5.11.1974. Suppose, it is found that there is no partiable interest of the property and a document styled as partition deed is written, there is nothing preventing the court or the authorities from considering the document to find out whether it amounts to a gift or not. This position has been specifically laid down by this court in the decision in Ponni vs. Taluk Land Board reported in 1981 KLT 780. There was a previous round C.R.P.No.973/2007 2 of litigation wherein one of the parties to the partition deed namely Benedict Britto contended for the said possession and the Taluk Land Board has by paragraph 1 of the impugned order agreed to delete that item from fixing the sealing limit. 2. So far as the present revision petitioner is concerned, the Land Board has just mentioned that by previous orders the property has been excluded and therefore, it cannot be considered. It has to be remembered that what is the extent involved in the partition deed and suppose it is construed as a gift, then the entire extent covered by the partition deed in favour of Amaldas or Arogyaswamy may have to be excluded from the sealing limit of the father for the reason that it amounts to a valid gift under section 84 (1) (A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Unfortunately, the Taluk Land Board has considered this aspect at by a one sentence, order holding that it has already been excluded. How it is excluded or how much is excluded is not seen clear from the order of the Taluk Land Board. Therefore, the matter requires interference. 3. I set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and direct the Board to consider the question raised by Sri.Manual Amaldas with respect to the partition deed in accordance with C.R.P.No.973/2007 3 law, in the light of the decision in Ponni vs. Taluk Land Board reported in 1981 KLT 780 and pass appropriate orders. I make it clear that the Taluk Land Board is not competent to re-open the case with respect to John Britto, who is the additional respondent in the revision petition. The Taluk Land Board is also directed to issue notice to Manual Amaldas and the declarant or the legal representatives fixing the date of appearance before the Taluk Land Board Board. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps