IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 245 of 2008(E) --------------------------------- AA.123/1992 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR . .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ REVISION PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------- K.GOPALAKRISHNA KADAMBALITHAYA, S/O. SADASHIVA KADAMBALITHAYA, RESIDING AT KUTHAJE IN PADRE, PADRE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O. VANINAGAR. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOWRI SANKAR RAI. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SAVITHRI, D/O.VASUDEVA, KADAMBALITHYA, AND W/O. GOPALAKRISHNA BAIPADITHAYA RESIDING AT NEKKAREKAD IN PADRE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.VANINAGAR. 2. RAMACHANDRA KADAMBALITHAYA, SO/.SADASHIVA KADAMBALITHAYA, RESIDING AT KUTHAJA IN PADRE,PADRE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.VANINAGAR. 3. K.LAXMINARAYANA KADAMBALITHAYA, SO/.SADASHIVA KADAMBALITHAYA, ARCHANA IN MADANADU TEMPLE,RESIDING AT MADANADU, KODAGU DISTRICT , P.O.MADANADU,KARNATAKA STATE. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 245 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of Appellate Authority, Kannur in A.A.123/92 whereby the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal. A perusal of the order of the Land Tribunal would show that it was dealing with the case of tenancy with respect to the properties covered by suo motu proceedings. The Tribunal found in the light of the document executed by the appellant and two others that the transaction is a lease and there is a stipulation to pay 21 muras of paddy. Later there was a partition deed in the family of the appellant and others and in that document also there is a clear cut recital that the property is outstanding with the tenant and the income derived from that property by way of rent has to be used for the religious purposes. These two documents certainly will stare at the face of the appellant and since the lease is CRP 245 OF 2008 -:2:- created prior to 1.4.1964 as evidenced by the document, one cannot hold that the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority has approached the subject in the wrong perspective. 2. So far as the tenancy right is concerned the Court is concerned only with respect to the position and status of the person as on 1.1.70 and if the tenancy is not prohibited under Section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act or under the exempted provisions, if a person succeeds in proving that he is the cultivating tenant as on 1.1.70 he is entitled to right as contended by him in the matter. The Land Tribunal has considered the matter elaborately and had arrived at a decision which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. I do not find that there is any irregularity or perversity which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore this C.R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-