A C BOPANNA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision which is directed against an order of the Land Board, arises under the following facts:

(2.) Petitioner submitted a statement before the Land Board under S.85(2) of the Land Reforms Act, in respect of the lands held by the partnership firm of which he was the Managing Partner. In the course of the proceedings he filed certain other statements also and to spins of them I shall refer later The firm holds 261.55 acres, of which the greater part is a coffee estate After the usual enquiries and verifications the Board passed the order under revision exempting a total area of 206.44 acres and allowing the firm to retain 15 acres within the ceiling area and directing the surrender of 40.11 acres as excess land The ceiling area was fixed under S.81(1)(d) of the Land Reforms Act and in this revision which is pressed only with respect to the excess land of 40 11 acres, the sole question is whether the determination of the ceiling by the Land Board is correct.

(3.) The statement under S.85(2) was submitted, as noticed above, on behalf of the firm of which the petitioner was the Managing Partner, the other partners being his 3 brothers and 3 sisters. In a subsequent statement submitted before the Board on October 4, 1973, the petitioner put forward a case that the partnership which was one at will had been dissolved and the property orally divided and that each partner is entitled to his or her respective share. This case of dissolution and partition was not accepted by the Board and although faintly suggested at the bearing it is too tenuous to be accepted. There is no evidence either of the one or the other and what is more it is disproved by the later objection and affidavit of January 1, 1974, in which the petitioner repeated the claim of partnership and his own status as its Managing Partner. Indeed the petitioner describes himself as the Managing Partner in this revision also. The story of dissolution of the firm and division of the property among the 7 partners must therefore be rejected.