KUNNATH KRISHNAN Vs. CHAMPRA MUNDACHALI MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revisions were filed by a Kudikidappukari. On her death, now her legal representatives have impleaded themselves as additional petitioners in the revisions. The respondents in both the revisions are the land -owners. The respondents filed an application for shifting the Kudikidappu under section 77 Kerala Act of 1964, for short the Act, on the ground that the land in which the Kudikidappu is situated, 71 cents in extent, is bona fide required for putting up a house the 2nd respondent, son of the 1st respondent. The Kudikidappukari contested the application and disputed the bona fides of the respondents. She also filed an application for purchase of the Kudikidappu under section 806 of the Act. The Land Tribunal allowed the application for shifting and then dismissed the purchase application for that reason. The Kudikidappukari filed appeals against the orders in both applications. The Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) dismissed the appeal against the order allowing the application for shifting and, for that reason, dismissed the appeal against the order dismissing the application for purchase also. The Kudikidappukari has challenged the decisions of the Appellate Authority in both appeals in these civil revisions. C. R. P No. 745. of 1980 is against the decision in the shifting case while C.R.P. No. 751 of 1980 is against the decision in the purchase case.

(2.) THE purchase case was decided against the Kudikidappukari since the Appellate Authority rejected her appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal allowing the application for shifting. So, the question that arises for consideration in these revisions is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the Kudikidappukari against the order of the Land Tribunal allowing shifting calls for any interference by this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel on both sides referred to a number of decisions of this Court on section 75 (2) of Kerala Act 1 of 1964. But I have not referred to any of those decisions in the order because in the above view I have taken, it is not necessary to say anything on the question of bona fides at this stage. The civil revisions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.