THRESSIA Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitioners are the appellants in the above Regular Second Appeal and the respondents are the respondents therein.

(2.) The above R.S.A. is filed against the judgment in A.S. No. 237/06 on the files of the Additional District Court, North Paravur, on appeal from O.S. No. 162/1993 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur. This review petition is filed mainly on the ground that the judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and non-consideration of crucial facts, including the pleadings and evidences and is based on an erroneous appreciation of the facts and laws and judicial decisions cited by the review petitioners at the time of argument. It is contended that the conclusions and findings in the judgment are contrary to the law discussed in paragraphs-11 and 12 of the judgment. The interpretation of statutes and the decision in Mariam v. Choolan,1979 KerLT 650 are erroneous and contrary to the law discussed therein. On the discussions in paragraphs 11 and 12, the Court ought to have held that even if Paily had died prior to the commencement of the Land Reforms Act, his right as a 'Kudikidappukaran' entitled to fixity of tenure would still devolve upon all his legal heirs together and not upon one among them. The court below went wrong in interpreting the definition of "person" envisaged in Sec. 2(43) of the Land Reforms Act. The court below went wrong in disallowing I.A. No. 923/2014 filed for receiving the death and burial certificate of late Paily. The death certificate produced by the petitioners in the Second Appeal ought to have been received as additional evidence.

(3.) In view of the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Review Petition, I am of the opinion that the first question to be considered is whether this review petition is maintainable in view of the grounds raised above.