LEKSHMY SUKESINI DEVI Vs. L.SUMATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After more than 30 years litigation, that too, before various forums, the first revision petitioner seeks to advance a totally new case and seeks re - opening of the entire proceedings on the allegation of fraud. The first revision petitioner also puts forward a case in opposition to the second revision petitioner. The revision petitioners, Sukesini and Maheswari Amma were the landlords and the deceased first respondent, Sumathi was the applicant for 'kudikidappu' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act). Sumati and Sukesini were sisters and Prasanna Kumari, the formers daughter, was impleaded on the death of her mother.

(2.) Sumathy and Sukesini were residing respectively in TC 24/1263 and TC 24/1262. The claim of Sumathy for 'kudikidappu' was based on her continued occupancy of TC 24/1263 from 1960. She claimed that she came to the possession of the land from Eswaran Thampi, father of Maheswari Amma, the original land owner, with his permission and erected a hut therein. Sukesini, her sister was impleaded as the landlord since the property in which TC 24/1263 was alleged to be situated, being 3.75 cents, was in the ownership and possession of Sukesini at the time of filing of the application.

(3.) The Land Tribunal originally by order dated 09/06/1981 in OA No. 618/1980 allowed the claim. After more than 3 years Sukesini approached the Appellate Authority by AA No. 1257/1984. Her contention was that she did not contest the OA as the building did not belong to her. The Appellate Authority condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. The case of Sukesini, recorded by the Appellate Authority was that she along with her sister Sumathy and Pachan Panicker their father, were residing in TC 24/1263 on rent and the owner was one Maheswari Amma. It was also contended that Sukesini purchased 3' cents of land together with building TC 24/1262 and she had no rights on TC 24/1263. The order of the Appellate Authority though challenged by Sumathy in CRP No. 901 / 1988, the remand was confirmed.