AMBU Vs. VELLACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for partition, one of the defendants contended, inter alia, that he has tenancy right over the suit property as it was orally leased to him in 1960. On the strength of the said contention fee moved the trial court to refer the question (whether he has such tenancy right)to a Land Tribunal under S. 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act' ). Learned Munsiff rejected the application as per the Impugned order. Hence the said defendant has filed this revision.

(2.) PARTIES to the suit are the children of one Kunhamma who died in 1990, Plaintiff is one of the daughters of the said Kunhamma. She contended that Kunhamma obtained the suit property on Kuzhikanam lease and had effected improvements and put up a building thereon and that as per suo motu proceedings initiated by the Land Tribunal, Kanhangad, a certificate of purchase was granted to Kunhamma on 20-12-1976 and that till her death in 1990 she continued to be in possession of the property as per the certificate. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, it was contended that the lease was granted to him in the year 1960 (Petitioner's age then would have been 15 or 16 if the present age shown in the plaint is correct) and that it was he who cultivated the land and put up the house building. He further contended that the certificate of purchase relied on by the plaintiff was obtained by fraud behind his back.

(3.) THE factual position in this is different. Petitioner claims tenancy right under the same person whose right, title and interest have been assigned to his mother. Kunhamma in the suo motu proceedings of the land tribunal by granting the certificate of purchase. Under S. 72 (K) (2) of the Act "the certificate of purchase issued under sub-s. (1) shall be conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right, title and interest of the landlord and intermediaries. If any" over the land concerned. Under S. 4 of the Evidence Act, when a fact is declared to be conclusive proof of another the court shall regard the other as proved and the court shall not allow evidence to be given to disprove the same. As held by this court in Lakshmi Bai t. Taluk land Board (1986 KLT 332) (by Dr. Kochu Thommen, J. as he then was)"evidentiary value of a certificate of purchase cannot be disregarded except where it was inaccurate or obtained by fraud".