PHILOMINA NEROABP Vs. KOCHUPENNU PANKAJAKSHY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder-plaintiff in a suit for redemption of mortgage is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the sixth judgment debtor - sixth defendant in the suit. In execution of the decree for redemption, the respondent raised a claim that she is a 'kudikidappukari' in respect of three cents of land and the shed situated in the decree schedule properly. While passing the decree for redemption by the lower court, the question of kudikidappu raised in the suit was specifically directed to be decided in the execution proceedings. The executing court, therefore, referred the question to the Land Tribunal for decision under Sec. 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. After reference, the Land Tribunal, it appears, has conducted an enquiry and entered a finding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of kudikidappu right in respect of the building as provided under Sec. 2(25) Explanation III. Thereafter, the court below passed an order in the execution petition on 3-1-1992 directing the decree-holder to obtain delivery of the property after excluding three cents of land in respect of which kudikidappu right is allowed by the Land Tribunal. The order passed by the court below is challenged in this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised different points to attack the impugned order. Substantially the argument is directed against the finding of the Land Tribunal allowing the kudikidappu right in favour of the respondent. According to him, he can raise objections against the findings of the Land Tribunal only in this proceeding. The question therefore to be decided is whether such contentions can be entertained in this revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The provisions contained in sub-sections (3) to (6) of Sec. 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are extracted below