IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 599 of 2000(B) ---------------------- ( AA.37/1998 of Appellate Authority (LR),THRISSUR S.M. NO. 154/95 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.) REVN. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3/LANDLORDS 1 TO 3:: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNAMOORTHI, S/O. LATE THIRUMALA GOWDER, GOWDER TEATRE, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 2. BHAGAVATHY, S/O. LATE THIRUMALA GOWDER, -DO -DO- 3. VENKITARAMAN, S/O. LATE THIRUMALA GOWDER, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM BY ADV.SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/TENANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SARADHA SHANMUGHA VELAYUDHAN, W/O. SHANMUGHA VELAYUDHAN, POOSARITHARA, PUTHUR AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. LAND TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. 3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), THRISSUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. , REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI S. DILEEP. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, ALONG WITH CRP NOS. 601 OF 2000 AND 600 OF 2000 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO. 1254 OF 2000 IN C.R.P. No. 599 OF 2000 DISMISSED. 24.03.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 ................................................................................... Dated this the 24th March, 2008 O R D E R These revisions arise out of three suo motu proceedings, viz., S.M. Nos. 154 of 1995, 153 of 1995 and 155 of 1995 respectively. In S.M.No. 153 of 1995, Sakunthala Ajith and another are shown as cultivating tenants. In S.M.No. 154 of 1995, Sarada Shanmugha Velayudhan is the cultivating tenant. In S.M.No. 155 of 1995, Manikandan is the cultivating tenant. The Land Tribunal held that the respective petitioners are not cultivating tenants and dropped the S.M. Proceedings. The tenants filed appeals, viz, A.A.Nos. 37 of 1998, 38 of 1998 and 39 of 1998. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and held that the cultivating tenants are entitled to purchase the lands in their possession. The landlords have come up in these revisions challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 2. Sakunthala and another claim tenancy in respect of 6 cents of land . Sarada claims an extent of 7 cents of land while Manikandan claims an extent of 5 ½ cents . In all the S.M. Proceedings, Krishnamoorthy and others, who are the petitioners in these revisions, are shown as landlords. 3. A perusal of the records would indicate that the landlord has filed an objection dated 13.11.1995 and the tenants have filed a rejoinder dated 16.01.1996 in S.M.No.153 of 1995. Thereafter, the tenants have filed an additional statement dated 02.11.1996 and the landlord has filed a reply dated C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 2 25.11.1996 in S.M.No. 153 of 1995. Similar pleadings are available in other cases as well. The records would also show that argument notes were submitted by counsel appearing on either side. No oral evidence was adduced by either side before the Land Tribunal. However, the parties have produced documents to substantiate their respective contentions. 4. On a perusal of the pleadings and the contentions raised before the authorities below, the respective contentions of the parties appear to be as follows: According to the landlords (Revision Petitioners), the property in dispute belonged to Tirumoorthy Chettiar . By sale deed dated 27.10.1945, Tirumoorthy Chettiar sold the property to Tirumala Gownder, the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners. One Sankunny Mannadiar executed a lease deed dated 22.07.1946 in favour of Tirumala Gownder, as per which, Sankunny Mannadiar was allowed to establish an industry in the property. There is also mention of existence of a house which was stipulated to be occupied by Sankunny Mannadiar . Mention is made in the lease deed about 'kudiyiruppukars' and 'pattom chits' and 'kodakooly chits' executed by them. In the document executed by Tirumoorthy Chettiar in favour of Tirumala Gownder also, there is mention of existence of tenancy, ' kudiyiruppu kaivasakkar' etc. The assignee, viz., Tirumala Gownder was given the right to evict the tenants. 5. It would appear that there was a suit as O.S.No. 102 of 1950 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad in respect of the property in question. Sankunny C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 3 Mannadiar was one of the defendants in that suit. It would also appear that for realisation of the decree amount, the property in question was sold in court auction and purchased by Tirumala Gownder. The legal representatives of Tirumala Gownder filed application for delivery and the property was delivered to them on 26.03.1957, as per the records produced before the Land Tribunal. It is not clear from the documents produced in the case as to who instituted O.S.No. 102 of 1950. There are other persons as well as parties to the suit. 6. The case of the tenants is that one Annamma Mathai was having lease hold rights in the property. She sold the property to one Madhavankutty Nair in the year 1955. In 1957, Madhavankutty Nair sold his right to Bhargavi Amma as per document No.771 of 1957 dated 19.03.1957, a few days before the date of delivery of the property in favour of Tirumala Gownder. The legal representatives of Bhargavi Amma had executed document Nos. 4892 of 1980 transferring the rights in favour of one Aboobacker, 4891 of 1980 in favour of Khadeeja, wife of Aboobacker and document No.4890 of 1980 in favour of Muhammed Ali, son of Aboobacker. After the death of Aboobacker, his legal representatives sold the property to the tenants in S.M.No. 153 of 1995. Muhammed Ali and Khadeeja sold the property to the tenants in other cases. 7. The Land Tribunal held that the documents produced by the tenants do not indicate the name of the landlord and that in the sale deed executed in favour of the tenants, 'jenmam' and 'verumpattom' rights have been transferred. C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 4 The Land Tribunal observed that if that was so, there was no necessity for them to approach the Land Tribunal for purchase of 'jenmam' right. The order passed by the authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order was produced by the tenants before the Land Tribunal in support of their contentions. The Land Tribunal held that the lands involved in the S.M. Proceedings being dry land, there was no necessity for conversion of the land invoking Kerala Land Utilization Order. The Land Tribunal held that the property was delivered to Tirumala Gownder as per court auction proceedings and that document No.771 of 1957 executed by Madhavankutty Nair in favour of Bhargavi Amma appears to be “parallel action”. It was also held by the Land Tribunal that the land in question is only a very small extent out of a larger area and therefore it cannot be shown on ground or on record that the land is possessed by anyone else other than the land owners. It was noticed that the land is situated in the heart of Palakkad town and that the existence of a residential building is not proved by the tenants. 8. The Appellate Authority erroneously put the burden of proof on the landlords. It was held that the landlords have not proved that they continued in possession of the property as on 01.04.1964 and thereafter. The Appellate Authority relied on the documents executed by Annamma Mathai to Madhavankutty Nair, by Madhavankutty Nair to Bhargavi Amma and by the legal representatives of Bhargavi Amma to Aboobacker and others and held that the C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 5 land in question was not in the possession of the original lessee, viz. Sankunny Mannadiar from 1955 onwards. The Appellate Authority relied on the possession certificate issued by the Village Officer during the pendency of the Appeal, the possession certificate being one indicating that the tenants are in possession. On these findings, the order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside by the Appellate Authority. 9. I am of the view that the Appellate Authority has not properly considered the case on the merits. The Land Tribunal also has not fully comprehended the respective contentions of the parties. Both the authorities proceeded on the basis that the tenants claimed title under Tirumala Gowder or his predecessor-in-interest. From the pleadings already on record, there is no such case for the tenants. On the other hand, the case of the tenants is that they traced title to Annamma Mathai. It is not known how Annamma Mathai got right over the property. The contentions put forward by the parties would indicate that they are claiming parallel and independent title to the property, in which case there is no question to be decided by the Land Tribunal and the dispute has to be decided by a civil court. On the other hand, if the tenants are claiming title under Tirumala Gownder or his predecessor-in-interest or sunccessor-in-interest, necessarily, the matter has to be decided by the Land Tribunal. It is not clear from the case put forward by the parties as to whether there is any other intermediaries. No intermediary is impleaded in the S.M. C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 6 proceedings. In short, it is not clear what respective contentions the parties really intended to put forward. The case put forward by the tenants can be decided only after comprehending the facts of the case and after finding under whom they are claiming tenancy. If it is found that Tirumala Gownder got possession of the property in court delivery and he continued in possession, there is no question of any other person having right except under a document executed by him or his successor in interest. The authorities below have not considered these matters which necessarily indicates that a proper decision has not been arrived at by them. 10. In the statement dated 13.11.1995 filed by the landlord, it is admitted that some of the properties are in the possession of the tenants. It is not made clear as to whether the tenants in the present case are the persons in possession, which are the properties in their possession or whether there is landlord-tenant relationship between Tirumala Gownder and the respective tenants. It is a vague statement . In the rejoinder statement dated 16.01.1996 filed by the tenants in S.M.No. 153 of 1995, there is a statement that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. If that is so, the S.M. Proceeding itself is not maintainable. The Appellate Authority had relied on the order passed by the authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In the additional statement dated 02.11.1996 filed by the tenants in S.M.No.153 of 1995, it is their case that the order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order is C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 7 regarding the neighbouring lands. In the statement dated 25.11.1996 filed by the landlord in S.M.No. 153 of 1995, it is stated that there is not even a hut in the property claimed by the tenants and that there is an old compound wall on the boundaries of the property which belonged to Tirumala Gownder. The parties did not disclose the true facts; or probably, they are not aware of the correct facts. The pleadings are vague, contradictory in terms and do not contain all the relevant facts. Even after the argument notes were filed , a clear picture has not emerged. The authorities below were really helpless as all the relevant facts were not stated by the parties. The parties did not choose to adduce any oral evidence also. All these would result in the inevitable consequence of a remand of the cases which were initiated in the year 1995. 11. Though I am of the view that the orders passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority are unsustainable, I am not inclined to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal since there is only one Land Tribunal for the whole district of Palakkad . It is agreed by both the parties that if a remand is to be made, it is better to have a remand to the Appellate Authority with liberty to both the parties to adduce evidence and to produce documents . Accordingly, the judgments of the Appellate Authority are set aside and the cases are remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter afresh and it need not consider the matter as an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal alone. The Appellate Authority C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 8 shall consider all the questions involved in the case, as an original authority could do or should do. The parties are at liberty to submit additional pleadings, to produce documents and to adduce oral evidence of their own and that of witnesses. All the contentions of both the parties are left open. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 9 K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................ C.R.P. Nos. 599, 600 & 601 OF 2000 ......................................................... Dated this the 24th March, 2008 O R D E R