MATHU Vs. ANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners challenge the judgment of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Cannanore in A. A. 4169 of 1978 confirming the order of the Land Tribunal No.I, Tellicherry in O.A 169 of 1973. Respondents 1 to 4 filed O.A 169 of 1973 under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Land Tribunal allowed the original application rejecting the contention of the revision petitioners that the O. A. is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in O.A 432 of 1972. Contention that the first respondent has other land in his possession and on that sole score he is disentitled to claim kudikidappu rights in the property was also found not tenable. Revision petitioners filed A. A 1178 of 1973 against O.A 432 of 1972 which was filed earlier by the first respondent and others. AA 1179 of 1973 was filed against O.A 169 of 1973. A.A.1178 of 1973 was dismissed and AA 1179 of 1973 was allowed and remanded. After remand, Land Tribunal allowed O.A 169 of 1973. That finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Contention of the revision petitioners is that O.A 169 of 1973 should not have been allowed by the Land Tribunal as O.A 432 of 1972 filed earlier was dismissed on merits. That contention is not tenable as the Appellate Authority in A.A.1178 of 1973 has vacated the findings of the Land Tribunal.

(3.) Next contention is that it is the first respondent who has executed a rent deed in favour of the revision petitioners and so he alone can claim kudikidappu right and not respondents 2 to 4. As the first respondent has executed rent deed and as he is alive, he alone can claim kudikidappu benefits and so long as that claim is there nobody else can prefer any claim. Respondents 2 to 4 are not entitled to claim kudikidappu benefits in the property as the entrustment is admittedly in favour of the first respondent.