LAWS(KER)-2011-1-57

CHACKO MATHAI Vs. SOSAMMA POTHEN

Decided On January 21, 2011
CHACKO MATHAI Appellant
V/S
SOSAMMA POTHEN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority, Alappuzha in A.A.250/98. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are stated as follows. It is the case of the original revision petitioner that the property which was having an extent of 2 acres and 76 cents of land were in the possession of the original petitioner and his father and during the year 1994 there had been a sale of the property by the respondents and the revision petitioners are claiming tenancy over that 50 cents of property. The Land Tribunal found in favour of the applicants therein and in appeal it has been reversed. The Land Tribunal found that the original revision petitioner is entitle to get fixity of tenure with respect to 32 cents of landwhereas the alleged tenant claiming possession over 45= cents of land and preferred a cross objection before the appellate Court. The Appellate Authority on a consideration of the materials allowed the appeal rejected the crossobjection and dismissed the case of tenancy. It is against that decision the revision petition is preferred.

(2.) HEARD the counsel for both the sides. It is true that the Kerala Land Reforms Act is a welfare legislation intended to confer benefit on the cultivating tenants if they satisfy the ingredients enumerated under S.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is the cultivating tenant who is entitled to fixity of tenure.

(3.) PW3 is one Philipose. He is also examined to prove the tenancy. According to him the property is having one acre and 26 cents of land. Even the tenant does not have such a case. His evidence also does not reveal that he is very much familiar with the property.He does not know for what purpose evidence had been put up and who is plucking the coconuts from the property. The mere assertion that he knows about the possession is not sufficient to prove the same. His version is that he had seen both the landlord and the tenant speaking in a cordial manner from the plaint schedule property.That will not indicate any confirmation of tenancy.