BRAHAM Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this petition is whether the preliminary order holding that the respondents are kudikidappukars and entitled to purchase land adjoining their kudikidappu is appealable or not. The status of respondents 1 and 2 was questioned by the revision petitioner when they filed application to purchase the kudikidappu and by the order appealed against the Land Tribunal decided that question in favour of the respondents. Appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority who held that the order is not appealable in view of the decision in Sankaran v. Kochukutty ( 1974 KLT 563 ). Since the correctness of the above decision was challenged the learned single Judge who earlier heard this revision petition has referred it for being heard by a Bench.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel contended that S.80B(3) provides for passing more than one order and any order passed under S.80B is appealable under S.102 of the Land Reforms Act. S.80B(3) is in the following terms: -

(3.) A more or less similar question arose in connection with an application for purchase of the landlord's rights. There the status of the applicant as a tenant was disputed. A decision was taken by the Land Tribunal as required by R.9 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules that the applicant is a tenant. In Chellappan v. Kalyani ( 1975 KLT 187 ) it was held by a Division Bench that that order, though preliminary in character, is an order coming under S.72(F) and appealable under S.102 of the Act. With respect, the reasoning in that case applies to the facts of this case as well.