IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 1154 of 2005(G) ---------------------- AA.100/1999 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT: ------------------------------- THOMAS ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM THOMAS, MANNURAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT PARAKALAI, BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, PARAKALAI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. BAYAKADAN VEETTIL PATTY AMMA, W/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN MANIYANI,BATTADUKKAM, PARAKKALAI, BELUR VILLAGE, PARAKALAI. 2. B. KRISHNAN, S/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN MANIYANI, BAYAKODAN VEETTIL, ALAI MADIKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, ACHIKANAM P.O. 3. B. SARADHA, D/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN AND W/O.K.P.KUNHAMBU, BAYAKODAN VEETTIL, PITTUR, BELUR VILLAGE, PARAKALAI P.O. 4. B. GANGADHARAN, S/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN, BAYAKODAN VEETTIL, VAYAMBIL, BELUR VILLAGE, PARAKALAI P.O. 5. B. DAMODARAN, S/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN MANIYANI, BAYAKODAN VEETTIL, MOLAVANNUR, BELUR VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, PARAKALAI P.O. 6. B. BALAL, S/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN MANIYANI, BAYAKADAN VEETTIL, BATTADUKKAM IN BELUR VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, PARAKALAI P.O. 7. B. LAKSHI, D/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN MANIYANI AND W/O. M. KUNHAMBU, BAYAKODAN VEETTIL CHATHIKUNDU IN BELUR VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, PARAKALAI P.O. 8. B. MADHAVAN, S/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN MANIYANI, BATTADUKKAM, BELUR VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, PARAKALAI P.O. 9. B. INDIRA, D/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN MANIYANI AND W/O. P.NARAYANAN, BAYAKODAN VEETTIL,CHAKKUNNU IN BELUR VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, PARAKALAI P.O. 10. B. GOPI, S/O. LATE MOLAVINI KUNDAN MANIYANI, BAYAKODAN VEETTIL, BATTADUKKAM IN BELUR VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, PARAKALAI P.O. 11. MOLAVINI BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, BELUR VILLAGE, PARAKALAI P.O. 12. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. N. K. THANKACHAN FOR R12 SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE FOR R1 TO R5, 7 & 9 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON 04/11/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. NO: 1154 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the _ _ _ th Day of November, 2009. O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the appellant in A.A. No. 100 of 1999 on the file of the Appellate Authority, (L.R.), Kannur. Respondents 1 to 11 herein are the respondents 1 to 11 in that appeal. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Petitioner is the owner in possession of 3 Acres 50 Cents of land in R.S. No.77/1 of Belur Village. Petitioner obtained title and possession of the said 3 Acres 50 Cents as per Sale deed No.1255/1996 of the SRO, Hosdurg from his grand father, late Mannuran Parambil Thomas. Mannuran Parambil Thomas and his wife, late Mrs. Mary and the two others were the cultivating tenants in possession of 98 Acres of land, including the land described in the Purchase Certificate in O.A. No.24916/1976 of the Deputy Collector and Land Tribunal C.R.P. NO: 1154 OF 2005 :2: No.VI, Kannur. In the oral partition, they obtained 55 Acres of land in their share. Out of the said 98 Acres of land, they assigned 32.5 Acres of land to their children and surrendered 7.5 Acres of land to the Government as excess land from out of the said 55 Acres of land. The balance land remained in their ownership and possession was 15 Acres of land. 3. They had obtained Purchase Certificate No.117/1991 in O.A. 6654/1975 of the Deputy Collector and Land Tribunal No.VI, Kannur for the said 15 Acres of land. It is from the said 15 Acres of land covered by the Purchase Certificate No.117/1991 in O.A. No.6654/1975 of the Deputy Collector and Land Tribunal No.VI, Kannur the petitioner obtained 3 Acres 50 Cents in R.S.No.77/1 of Belur Village as per Sale deed No.1255/1996 of the SRO, Hosdurg. Thus the Purchase Certificate No.117/1991 in O.A. No.6654/1975 of the Deputy Collector and Land Tribunal No.VI, Kannur covered the 3 Acres 50 Cents of land obtained by the petitioner as per Sale Deed No.1255/1996 of the SRO, Hosdurg. C.R.P. NO: 1154 OF 2005 :3: 4. Respondents 1 to 9 are the wife and children of the petitioner in O.A. No.24916/1976 of the Deputy Collector, Land Tribunal No.VI, Kannur. Petition in O.A. 24196/1976 fraudulently and collusively obtained a Purchase Certificate for 4 Acres of land in R.S.No.77/1 of Belur Village. The 5th respondent, B. Damodaran filed a suit, O.S. No.444/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg against the father of the petitioner, Sri. Abraham Thomas for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming that he is the owner in possession of 91.5 Cents of land in R.S. No.77/1 of Belur Village and produced the Purchase Certificate dated 5.2.1977 in O.A.No.24916/1976 of the Deputy Collector, Land Tribunal No.VI, Kannur for the said 91.5 Cents of land. The said Purchase Certificate dated 5.2.1977 in O.A.No.24916/1976 is not valid and is obtained illegally. 5. Petitioner is not a party in O.A. No. 24916/1976. Petitioner came to know about the said Purchase Certificate and the Proceedings in O.A 24916/1976 only on 8.9.1999 from the office C.R.P. NO: 1154 OF 2005 :4: of the counsel for his father in O.S. No:444/1999. Petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order in O.A. No:24916/1976 the next day itself and obtained certified copy only on 22.9.1999 and filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority (LR) on 27.9.1999 as A.A. No.100 of 1999 along with a petition to condone the delay of 22 years in filing the appeal. The learned Appellate Authority, on considering the delay petition, found that the appellant has not shown satisfactory reasons for the condonation of delay and the petition to condone the delay was dismissed and consequently A.A. No: 100 of 1999 was also dismissed as time barred. Against that order, the appellant filed this C.R.P. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Admittedly the Revision petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in O.A. No: 24916 of 1976 on the file of Land Tribunal No.IV, Kannur. Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act makes it clear that any person even if he is not a party to the C.R.P. NO: 1154 OF 2005 :5: proceedings but aggrieved by an order passed by the Land Tribunal can file an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal. Rule 94 of Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules provides that an appeal from the order of the Land Tribunal shall be filed within 60 days from the date of the order appealed against. Section 102 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides that the Appellate Authority may admit appeal presented after the expiration of the period prescribed under Sub section (1), if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. O.A. No. 24916 of 1976 was allowed by the Land Tribunal No.IV Kannur on 5.2.1977. A.A. No: 100 of 1999 challenging that order was presented only on 27.9.1999 after the elapse of more than 22 years. 8. The revision petitioner alleges that he came to know about the proceedings in O.A.No.24916 of 1976 only when the 5th respondent filed O.S. No: 444 of 1999 before the Munsiff's Court Hosdurg, against the father of the revision petitioner on 8.9.1999. C.R.P. NO: 1154 OF 2005 :6: Then the revision petitioner applied for certified copy of the order in that O.A. and he obtained a certified copy on 22.9.1999 and the appeal A.A.No.100 of 1999 was filed on 27.9.1999. There is no contra evidence to show that the revision petitioner had previous knowledge about the order in O.A. before 8.9.1999. 9. It is well settled principle that the term 'sufficient cause' has to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice and the case should be decided on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that revision petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority. Therefore in the interests of justice, the petition to condone the delay in filing the A.A. No: 100 of 1999 has to be allowed. 10. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed. The order in A.A. No: 100 of 1999 on the file of the Appellate Authority (LR) dismissing the appeal and the petition to condone the delay are set aside and the delay is condoned. The petition is allowed and C.R.P. NO: 1154 OF 2005 :7: A.A. No: 100 of 1999 is restored to file. The Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur is directed to dispose of A.A. No: 100 of 1999 in accordance with the law. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 10.12.2009. There is no order as to cost. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/