N SREEDHARAN Vs. N KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before me is the decree-holder in O. S. No. 1073 of 1974 on the file of the 2nd Additional Minsiff's Court, Trivandrum. The respondent is the judgment-debtor. The suit from which this revision arises was laid for redemption of a mortgage executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on 14-3-1969. This document is marked as Ext. A-1 in the suit. The petitioner himself obtained this property under a mortgage deed D/- 7-9-195 (sic). The sub-mortgage in question was' to a consideration of Rs. 2,000. The suit was resisted on the plea that the defendant was a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of Explanation IV to Sec. 2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 35 of ]9tifl), for short, the Act. At the trial stage the question raised by the defendant was referred to the concerned Land Tribunal The Land Tribunal wrongly returned the records observing that the question of kudikidappa claimed under Explanation IV to Section 2 (25) of the Act arose only at the time of redemption. The trial Court thereafter proceeded with the suit and passed a decree as prayed for. The decree was put in execution when again the same plea was raised by the respondent, upon which the question was again referred to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal returned the finding in favour of the respondent which finding was accepted by the execution Court. It is this order that is challenged under revision.

(2.) The petitioner's learned counsel put forward a strong plea that the order under revision suffers from an error of jurisdiction because the finding entered by the Land Tribunal and accepted by the execution Court was not on an appreciation of the necessary ingredients of the Explanation of which support was sought. In other words, the plea of the respondent did not satisfy the requirements of the Explanation nor of Section 2 (25).

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent while disputing this statement also raided a plea that the revision itself was not maintainable because the Court below had not committed any error of jurisdiction, that it had only accepted the finding returned by the Land Tribunal and that the finding by the Land Tribunal cannot be made the subject-matter of a revision.