IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 2820 of 2000(D) ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.1999 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), KANNUR IN AA.569/1997 ORDER DATED 19.6.1997 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL NO.1, KANNUR IN S.M.NO.170 OF 1992 .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS AND 3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------- 1. P.V.NARAYANI, W/O.LATE MAVILAKKANDY KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAL AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.V.LALITHA,D/O.LATE MAVILAKKANDY KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- 3. P.V.SHOBHA RAJENDRAN,O-27/OLD, CBI QUARTERS, KANRAJ SALAI, K.K.NAGAR, CHENNAI-78. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4 TO 6: --------------- 1. MAVILAKANDY AMMALU AMMA, MAVILAKKANDY HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL. (DIED) 2. P.V.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.MAVILAKKANDY KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, “RAM”, NEAR KADALAYI SREE KRISHNAN TEMPLE, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, DISTRICT KANNUR. 3.MRS.NIRMALA RAJENDRAN,D/O.MAVILAKKANDY KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, -DO- -DO- 4.MRS.RAGINI MURALEEDHARAN,D/O.MAVILAKANDY KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, -DO- -DO- 5.CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKATH VASUMATHI THAMBURATTI, PADINHARE KOTTARAM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, DISTRICT KANNUR. CRP.2820/00 6.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. ADDL.RESPONDENTS 7 TO 13: 7.MAVILAKANDY RAJENDRAN, BUSINESS MAN, “DEEPAM”, KUNDAN CHAL, PANAMKAVU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-1. 8.MAVILAKANDY CHANDRAN, MAVILAKANDY HOUSE, NEAR RAJAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.CHIRAKKAL (R.S.), KANNUR-11. 9.MAVILAKANDY SAROJINI,W/O.LATE NARAYANAN, MAVILAKANDY HOUSE, NEAR RAJAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.CHIRAKKAL (R.S.),KANNUR-11. 10.MAVILAKANDY LAKSHMI,W/O.AMBU, MAVILAKANDY HOUSE, NEAR RAJAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.CHIRAKKAL (R.S.),KANNUR-11. 11.MAVILAKANDY YESODHA,W/O.SREEDHARAN, KUNDAN CHAL, PANAMKAVU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. 12.MAVILAKANDY OMANA,W/O.LATE.BALAKRISHNAN, KUNDAN CHAL, PANAMKAVU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11 13.MAVILAKANDY JAYASREE,W/O.RAGHAVAN, KUNDAN CHAL, PANAMKAVU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDNETS 7 TO 13 BEING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 30.1.2008 IN I.A.NO.122/2005. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIDRISHNAN FOR R6 SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R1 SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R7 TO R13 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.2820 OF 2000 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009 O R D E R The revision is filed under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, challenging the judgment dated 27.10.1999 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (LR) in A.A.No.569 of 1997. The revision has been filed by the appellants alongwith the 3rd respondent in the appeal before the Appellate Authority. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the revision may be summed up thus: Suo motu proceedings as S.M.No.170 of 1992 for assignment of jenmom right in respect of an extent of 673/4 cents in R.S.96/1A of Chirakkal Amsom were initiated before the Land Tribunal, Kannur. The 1st respondent in the revision was shown as the cultivating tenant. The 6th respondent was the jenmi and one Sri.Marikkandi Kunhiraman Nair was shown as intermediary to the property. The above CRP.2820/00 2 said Mavilakkandi Kunhiraman Nair is the husband of the 1st revision petitioner and father of the 2nd and 3rd revision petitioners and respondents 2 to 4. Mavilakkandi Kunhiraman Nair contested the petition disputing the tenancy right over the property with the 1st respondent, who is none other than his sister. He also contended that he is not an intermediary to the property. He claimed to have obtained the right of jenmi as per the registered assignment deed of 1965. Property covered by the proceedings admittedly belonged to Chirakkal Kovilakom. One Pottampalli Kunhambu was in possession of 89 cents of property in the above survey number as a lessee, and from him, Sri.Pallippiriyarath Pokkan Nair got assignment of the right over that property under Ext.B19, Mavilakkandi Kunhiraman Nair, who resisted the tenancy right of the 1st respondent, his sister, contended that Pallippiriyarath Pokkan Nair, their father, had transferred the land to Pallippiriyarath Kumba, and from him, and from him under a document executed in 1965, he got right over the property, and thus, he became its absolute owner. The 1st respondent contended that from Kunhambu, the lessee, her father CRP.2820/00 3 Pallippiriyarath Pokkan Nair got right, but, no lease deed was executed by him in favour of Chirakkal Kovilakom. He continued in possession under the jema of Kunhambu paying the rent in the account of the old tenant. Later her father, Pallippiriyarath Pokkan Nair entrusted the property, which is a paddy field, to her husband Mavilakkandi Kunhanan Nair, and thereafter, he was paying the rent to the landlord in the account of Kunhambu and in the year 1965, after Mavilakkandi Kunhanan Nair, her brother purchased the land in question as per the document in Ext.B20, her husband had given rent to him recognising him as a jenmi. The 1st respondent produced Exts.A11 and A12 to prove such payment of rent to her brother, Marikkandi Kunhiraman Nair. The rival case presented by the Mavilakkandy Kunhiraman Nair, the predecessor of the revision petitioners, and that of the 1st respondent, the former contending that he is the absolute owner and not an intermediary, and the latter contending that he is only an intermediary who had collected rent from her husband, the tenant in enjoyment of the property, was gone into by the Land Tribunal with reference CRP.2820/00 4 to the materials produced by both parties and the report collected from the authorised officer. The revenue inspector attached to Special Tahasildar Officer, after inspection and enquiry, filed Ext.C1 report showing that Mavilakkandi Kunhiraman Nair had received rent from the 1st respondent, and so much so, she is a tenant under him also. It was also found from the materials produced Exts.A1 to A16 that the 1st respondent had tenancy right over the land in question. The Land Tribunal thereupon passed an order that the 1st respondent is a tenant of the land, and as such, she is entitled to get the assignment of the title of the land in her favour. The revision petitioners 1 and 2 challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur, and the Appellate authority after reappreciating the materials and hearing the counsel on both sides, upheld the order of the Land Tribunal an dismissed the appeal. Correctness of that judgment is impugned in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The claim over the property raised by the appellants as successors-in-interest of CRP.2820/00 5 their predecessor is based on Ext.A19 by which Mavilakkandi Kunhiraman Nair obtained assignment of right from Muthoor Thampuratti, in whose share, 3.67 acres including the property covered by the proceedings was allotted under the partition deed executed by the members of the Chirakkal Kovilakom. When that be the case, the jenmom right obtained by the predecessor of the revision petitioners, Mavilakkandy Kunhiraman Nair, after the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which has come into effect from 1.4.1964, will not in any way affect the tenancy right over the property covered by the proceedings. It is the case of both sides that Pallippiriyarath Pokkan Nair, father of Mavilakkandi Kunhiraman Nair and the 1st respondent had got assignment of the land from the previous tenant and was in enjoyment of the land. Whereas the 1st respondent would contend that her husband was entrusted with the property by the father-in-law and he continued as a cultivating tenant paying the rent in the account of the old tenant the claim of the appellants, it is seen, is solely based on the jenmom right obtained in the name of the predecessor, Ext.A19 after the commencement of the Land CRP.2820/00 6 Reforms Act. The appellants had no case that Mavilakkandy Kunhiraman Nair, their predecessor had any tenancy in common with the 1st respondent as a legal heir of Pallippiriyarath Pokkan Nair. After obtaining jenmom right over the land Mavilakkandy Kunhiraman Nair, predecessor of appellants, had collected rent from the 1st respondent, as evidenced by A11 and 12, receipts produced by the 1st respondent. When such be the case, the conclusion formed by the Land Tribunal that the 1st respondent is the tenant of the land entitled to the assignment of the title over the land, which has been confirmed by the Appellate authority, is unassailable. The revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp