KUNHIKANNAN Vs. AMBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order in I.A.7/1978 dated 12-10-1984 in S.M.No.917/77 passed by the Land Tribunal - I, Kangangad. The 1st respondent in the LA. and the petitioner in the S.M. Proceedings is the revision petitioner.

(2.) 77 cents of land comprised in R.S,No.260/9 of Hosdurg Village was assigned in favour of the petitioner as per the order in S.M.P. 917/77 in the joint application filed by the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 herein. Respondents 1 and 2 being 3rd party challenged the order in the S.M. Proceedings before the Appellate Authority, Cannanore in A.A. 195/1979. The appellate authority found that appeal under S.102 of the Land Reforms Act is not sustainable since the impugned order was passed by the Land Tribunal under S.72MM (3) of the Land Reforms Act. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, directing the appellants to seek remedy under S.72MM(7) of the Land Reforms Act before the competent authority within 90 days of the receipt of a copy of that judgment. Accordingly, the 3rd party appellants filed IA.7/78 before the Land Tribunal in SMP 917 / 77. The Land Tribunal after enquiry found that the 1st respondent - revision petitioner herein is only a coowner and he is not entitled to purchase the jenmom tight in the property exclusively in his name and set aside the certificate of purchase already issued to him by order dated 12-10-1984. That order was challenged by the revision petitioner in A.A.1/85 before the Appellate Authority. Respondents 1 and 2 produced the certified copy of the judgment of this court in S.A.523/85 before the Appellate Authority. On the basis of the findings of this court that the revision petitioner herein has not proved the alleged oral lease set up by him in favour of his mother, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Hence this C.R.P. is preferred by the 1st respondent before this court.

(3.) According to the revision petitioner, the plaint schedule property belonged to one Ambady on jenmom right and it was outstanding on illidarvar right with one Morarji and Seetharamayya in the year 1864. There were legal proceedings against them and M/s. Venkal Subha Rao and K.P. Rama Rao were appointed as liquidators. According to the petitioner, as per the registered assignment deed dated 4-10-1918 the liquidators assigned the arwar right belonged to Morarji and Seetharamayya to one Kannan, S/o. Ambady. Kannan assigned the property in favour of his sister Vellachi and nephew Achuthan as per the registered assignment deed dated 30*11-1932. Karichi, the mother of the petitioner obtained oral lease of the property from Vellachi and Achuthan. Karichi died and petitioner herein is her only son and legal representative. The legal representatives of Vellachi and Achuthan were the respondents in S.M. 917/77. Accordingly the joint application in Form J was filed between the petitioner and the respondent in the S.M. Proceedings and purchase certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner.