CHANDRA GOPI Vs. U.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assignees, of a 'tenant' who obtained purchase certificate, are in revision against concurrent findings. The path to this Court, as is usual in proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was strewn with remand orders. Two persons, viz., Ramakrishnan and Chandra Gopi, obtained assignment of a total of 2.61 acres of land in Survey No.1496/2 and 3 of Kodakara Village from one Kunjappu. Kunjappu's legal heirs are respondents 1 to 6 and 9 to 13, who are the contesting respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts are, that, Kandu, the original landlord, had allegedly leased out the said properties by an oral lease to his sister Kunhipennu (@ Kochupennu). Kunhipennu, by Exhibit B2 bearing No.200 of 1120 M.E., sold the lease hold rights to her daughter Kochuparu and her son-in-law Kunjappu jointly. Kunjappu, in 1959 by Exhibit A2 deed No.700 of 1959, executed a fresh lease (patta-seetu) to the landlord Kandu. Whether the said lease is a fresh one in his individual name or whether it is a continuation of the lease to Kunjappu and Kochuparu is essentially the question that has to be resolved in the above case.

(3.) THE legal heirs of Kochuparu approached the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur in A.A.No.278 of 1980, which allowed condonation of delay of about 9 years and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal. Since the assignees were not heard, they challenged that order in C.R.P.No.633 of 1985, wherein the Appellate Authority was directed to implead them and pass fresh orders. The Appellate Authority, in A.A.No.2 of 1987, passed a remand order dated 31.12.1987. Original Petition filed, as O.P.No.5775 of 1988, confirmed the remand. The proceedings were re-numbered before the Land Tribunal, Kodungallur and then transferred to the Land Tribunal, Thrissur. The suo motu proceedings, numbered as S.M.301/2000, was allowed by the Land Tribunal. Kunjappu and Kochuparu were held to have joint tenancy and purchase certificate was directed to be issued in both their names. The Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the Land Tribunal.