THOMAS Vs. PUNNOOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the appellant contended that the decision of the Land Tribunal was based on a complete absence of any evidence. It is difficult to sustain this argument, as the learned judge has noticed that there was some material before the Land Tribunal, which it accepted, and on the basis of which it directed shifting of the kudikidappu. The sufficiency and the acceptability of the said material is not for this court to consider in these proceedings.

(2.) IT was then contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent had abandoned his interest in the saw mill. The contention was based on an affidavit filed by the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. We have examined the allegation and we are not prepared to hold on the strength of the averments therein that the 1st respondent had become disentitled to pursue or to prosecute his application for shifting the kudikidappu.