KESAVARU PADMAVATHI ANTHARJANAM Vs. MUHAMMED KUNJU SHAMSUDDIN KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S. 290 of 1971 is against the judgment of the appellate authority (Sub Court, Pathanamthitta) in Land Tribunal Appeal No. 5 of 1965 against the decision in O.A. 513 of 1964 of the Quilon Land Tribunal. The O.A. was filed by the appellant for fixation of fair tent. It has had a chequered career. The appellate authority, differing from the Land Tribunal, found that the respondent to this appeal was a cultivating tenant and remanded the application for fixing fair rent, the correct extent of the property and the other relevant particulars. It is against this order of the appellate authority that the writ petition, O.P. 1111 of 1973, has been preferred.

(2.) In this writ petition the only argument raised by the petitioner is that the finding of the appellate authority was based on no evidence at all. It is impossible to agree. The appellate authority has made a detailed consideration of the evidence of pws. 1 to 5 and of the Dws, examined in the case, and also the documentary evidence produced on either side. The matter was discussed in Para.8 to 10 of the appellate authority's judgment, through which we have been carefully taken. It cannot be said that the finding was rested on no evidence at all. We find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded or with the order of the appellate authority. We dismiss this O.P., but without costs.

(3.) Our attention was called to the decision of our learned brother Sadasivan J. in Mani Chacko v. Subramonian Moothathu ( 1970 KLT 1022 ). There, the learned Judge having rightly noticed that the entertainment of a suit was barred by S.32 of the Land Reforms Act, further directed that the suit having been filed, will stand adjourned sine die. We cannot, with respect, agree to the course. If the entertainment or institution of a suit is prohibited, the same cannot be received and adjourned, whether sine die or otherwise.