IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 131 of 1990(H) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. RESPONDENTS/ COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- SRI. NAZHIKKAL SANKUNNI, RETIRED HEADMASTER, PALAKUZHI, KARKITTAM KUNNU, MANNARGHAT (DIED).## ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 2. SREENAZHIKKAL KUTTAPPAN NAIR, PALAKKAZHI ALANNALLUR. DIED *3. NAZHIKKAL KUNJUKKUTTAN NAIR, -DO- -DO- **4. PADMANABHAN NAIR, “ “ 5. KUNJUMALU AMMA, “ “ 6. GEETHA (MINOR) KUNJUMALU AMMA (MOTHER) “ “ 7. AMBIKA DEVI, -DO- -DO- (MINOR). 8. NAZHIKKAL VIJAYALEKSHMI, -DO-. 9. NAZHIKKAL BALACHANDRAN -DO-. 10. NAZHIKKAL KUNJULAKSHMI, -DO-. 11. RAJENDRAN, -DO- -DO-. 12. NAZHIKKAL KALI ALIAN AMMU AMMA -DO- -DO- #**(DIED). R.P. NO. 131/1990: 13. JANARDHANAN, -DO- -DO-. 14. SUBHASH (MINOR), VIJAYALEKSHMI (MOTHER -DO- -DO-). 15. NAZHIKKAL SEDHUMADHAVAN “ “ 16. VASANTHAKUMARI, “ “ 17. KARTHIYAYANI AMMA “ “ 18. PEETHAMBARAN, PALAKKAZHI, ALANALLUR. 19. REMADEVI, “ “ 20. INDIRA DEVI, “ “ *** 21. PARUKUTTY, “ “ * 22. LEELAVATHY AMMA, W/O. KUNJUKUTTAN NAIR, MELUVEETIL (H) , P.O. KOLLILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED R3 AS PER ORDER DT. 11/08/06 IN C.M.P. 6253/02. ** 23. SMT. CHANDRIKA AMMA, NAZHIKKAL.P.O., ALANALLUR, PALAKKAD. **24. SRI. ANOJ, S/O. NAZHIKKAL, PADMANABHAN NAIR, P.O. ALANALLUR. R.P. NO. 131/1990: **25. LIGITHA, D/O. LATE NAZHIKKAL PADMANABHAN NAIR, (MINOR), ALANALLUR, PALAKKAD. ** ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 11/08/2006 IN C.M.P. 1367/2003. ## ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 21 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 15/12/1988 ON C.M.P. 14004/88. #** IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 12TH RESPONDENT DIED & LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 12TH RESPONDENT ARE R8, R13, R15 AND R16 WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 04/02/97 ON MEMO C.F. 1150/97. *** IT IS RECORDED THAT DECEASED R4, R5 & R17 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R21 AS PER ORDER DTD. 11/08/06 IN C.M.P. 1367/03. R4, R23 TO R25 BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, R2, R3, R5 TO R11, R14, R17 TO R21 BY ADV.SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) ADV.SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, ADV.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 131 OF 1990 IN C.R.P. NO. 1749 OF 1985 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This review petition is preferred against the judgment dated 30th January, 1989. It was a revision preferred by the State of Kerala against the order of the Taluk Land Board in SM 156/77. One Nazhikkal Sankunni Nair was stated to have been in possession of excess land. It was contended by the said Sankunni Nair that he is the karanavan of the Tarward and the property acquired is for the benefit of the Tarward and therefore all the members of the Tarward are entitled to get equal share over the property. The Taluk Land Board accepted the contention and held in favour of the declaration. It was against that decision a revision was preferred before this Court. 2. This Court considered the question and it can be seen that the contention of the Government was that 13.48½ acres of property is not the joint family property. Reliance R.P. 131/90 IN CRP NO. 1749 of 1985 -:2:- was placed by the Government on the authorized officer's report dated 7.3.1984. According to the authorized officer except document No.656/65 all other acquisitions had been made by Sankunni Nair in his individual capacity. But it was resisted on the ground that it was acquired by him only as a karanavan of the joint family property and subsequently during 1974, i.e., by document dated 23.1.1974 the property has been divided among the members of the Tarward. This Court held that it is correct and further held that even if it is not so the partition deed can be treated as a gift and therefore in that event also there will not be any excess land. 3. So far as the gift portion is concerned it has to be stated this Sankunni Nair was an unmarried adult. There is provision under Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act that upto 5.11.74 gift by parents to the children are validated. Therefore even if the partition deed executed by R.P. 131/90 IN CRP NO. 1749 of 1985 -:3:- the said Sankunni Nair is treated as of a gift it cannot get validity in the light of the statutory provision. To that extend the observation of this Court may not be correct. 4. But the fundamental question is with respect to the nature of the property. There is no dispute with regard to the karanavanship of Sankunni Nair in the Tarward. There is also no dispute that there are other properties which belong to the Tarward. When a person who has made an acquisition is the karanavan of the Tarward there is a presumption that it is a Tarward property. But, I am conscious of the fact that it is only a rebuttable presumption. The case law on the point also would show that when it is proved that a family possessed sufficient nucleus with the aid of which the member might have made the acquisition, the law raises a presumption that it is a joint family property and the onus is shifted to the individual member to establish that the property was acquired by him without the aid of the said R.P. 131/90 IN CRP NO. 1749 of 1985 -:4:- nucleus. It is true under the Marumakkathayam Law that the said proposition cannot be extended to acquisition by junior members of the Tarward. So, here the karanavan namely Sankunni Nair, categorically has asserted that the property is acquired as karanavan of the Tarward and the document also describes him as karanavan. The subsequent conduct namely entering into a partition deed in the year 1974 also makes it clear that the members of the Tarward treated it as a Tarward property and thereafter effected division of the property. When it is so the necessary ingredients to constitute that it is an acquisition for the joint family, i.e., for the Tarward stands proved. There is no evidence adduced to show that it is not correct or that the presumption is rebutted. The Taluk Land Board also applied its mind and arrived at that decision. Therefore, from these discussions, I hold that the acquisition of the property having an extend of 13.48½ of R.P. 131/90 IN CRP NO. 1749 of 1985 -:5:- land by document of the year 1965 is also an acquisition for and on behalf of the Tarward and that has been treated as a tarward property and therefore the consideration of the question that it is the individual property of the Sankunni Nair does not arise. Since the finding on this issue concludes the matter the question of reviewing the judgment does not arise and therefore the review petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- R.P. 131/90 IN CRP NO. 1749 of 1985 -:6:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 131 of 1990 in C.R.P. 1749 OF 1985 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 10th January, 2008.