IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 446 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.2069/1998 Dated 17/01/2007 .................... : REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------- 1. KOCHU PARU, W/O.KANDANKUNJU, HANUMARUVELI, KATTOORMURI, MARARIKKULAM SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MANIYAN, S/O.KANDANKUNJU, HANUMARUVELI, KATTOORMURI, MARARIKKULAM TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. RAJAN, S/O.KANDANKUNJU, HANUMARUVELI, KATTOORMURI, MARARIKULAM SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. VASUMATHY, D/O.KANDANKUNJU, HANUMARUVELI, KATTOORMURI, MARARIKULAM SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. SARADA, D/O.KANDANKUNJU, MARARIKULAM SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT ------------------------------- MARANKULANGARA DEVASWOM, MARARIKULAM SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTOORMURI, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= R.P No.446 of 2007 in C.R.P.No.2069/1998 ======================= Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order passed by a learned single Judge of this court in C.R.P.2069/1998 on 17.1.2007 dismissing the revision filed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) under section 103 of Kerala Land Reforms Act. Case of the petitioner is that while disposing the revision, this court did not take into consideration the documents produced by the petitioners before the Land Tribunal establishing the lease and the fact that A.S.120/1977 was dismissed but it was without taking into consideration the fact that the right was decided subject to the claim of tenancy in the O.A. It was also contended the fact that the property claimed in the O.A is not included in RP 446/2007 in C.R.P.2069/98 2 Ext.B2 partition deed is not a ground to reject the tenancy claimed, as at the time of partition absolute right did not vest on the sharers to whom properties were divided under Ext.B21 and in such circumstance the order of this court is to be reviewed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that in paragraph 3 of the order sought to be reviewed, this court has found that no evidence was adduced to establish the oral lease in respect of the property in question and the fact that 13 documents were produced before the Land Tribunal was not taken into consideration. What is found by this court is that the lease set up by the petitioners is an oral lease and no evidence was adduced to establish the said oral lease. Even according to petitioners, the documents produced will not establish the oral lease as such and at best would support their plea of possession. Therefore I do RP 446/2007 in C.R.P.2069/98 3 not find that there is any apparent error in the said observation in paragraph 3 of the order. 4. Learned counsel then argued that the non- inclusion of the property in Ext.B2 partition deed is not a valid reason to negative the claim for tenancy because at that time the O.A was pending. This court took the view that if the tenancy so set up is true,the property would have been included in the partition deed. It cannot be said that it is not a reasonable or possible view. In any case the fact that another view is possible is not a ground to review the order on that basis. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that though in the impugned order reliance was placed on the decree for injunction granted in O.S.276/1975, that decision is subject to the decision in the O.A and therefore for the reason that a decree for injunction was granted in favour of the respondent, the tenancy claimed in the O.A cannot be negatived. What was found by this court is that in O.S.276/1975 a decree for injunction was granted RP 446/2007 in C.R.P.2069/98 4 in favour of the respondent establishing his possession and therefore petitioners cannot claim to be in possession of the property and that negatives the claim of the lease set up by the petitioners. Though learned counsel argued that the view taken by this court is not correct, the scope of the review is limited. Petitioners cannot challenge the correctness of the order by filing a review petition. The remedy is to challenge the order before the appropriate forum. I do not find any apparent error or other sufficient reason warranting review of the order dated 17.1.2007. Review petition is therefore dismissed. M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------- ORDER MARCH,2008