PADMANABHAN Vs. SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal and the Civil Revision arise out of litigations between the legal representatives of the parties to an Ottikuzhikanom of the year 1110 M. E. The appellant in the second appeal who is the revision petitioner in the civil revision, is a legal representative of Valli Nangeli while, respondents in the second appeal and in the civil revision are the legal representatives of Marthandan Krishnan who executed the Ottikuzhikanom in favour of Valli Nangeli and others. On the basis of the Ottikuzhikanom, a suit for redemption was filed in 1967 as O. S. No. 1101 of 1967 before the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum. When the decree for redemption was pending execution, the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 was amended by Act 35 of 1969 and thereafter, the appellant Appi Padmanabhan, by an execution application contended that he was a tenant and hence the decree holders could not evict him from the decree schedule properties and for that reason, the execution petition should either be dismissed or the question of tenancy should be referred to the Land Tribunal for its findings. The executing court allowed the contention of tenancy and dismissed the execution petition by its order dated 28-10-1971. The above order became final.

(2.) Then, Appi Padmanabhan filed O A. No. 588 of 1973 before the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum under S.72B of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 for the assignment of the landlord's rights in the property covered by the Ottikuzhikanom. The Land Tribunal dismissed the original application holding that the applicant was not a tenant. The above order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by Appi Padmanabhan before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alleppey, but the Appellate Authority dismissed that appeal and confirmed the decision of the Land Tribunal. It is the above judgment of the Appellate Authority that is challenged in the Civil Revision.

(3.) The respondents filed a second suit for redemption of the Ottikuzhikanom as O.S. 1132 of 1973 before the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum. As the appellant and the other defendants in the suit raised a question of tenancy, the Court referred the question to the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum for its findings. The Land Tribunal by its findings, rejected the tenancy claimed. The Trial Court accepted that finding and decreed the suit for redemption and recovery of possession of the properties covered by the Ottikuzhikanom The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was challenged by Appi Padmanabhan in appeal before the District Court, Trivandrum. The District Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. In this second appeal, the above judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are challenged by Appi Padmanabhan.