LAWS(KER)-2006-2-27

ARUMUGHAN Vs. KUMARAN EZHUTHASSAN

Decided On February 12, 2006
ARUMUGHAN Appellant
V/S
KUMARAN EZHUTHASSAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed O. S. No. 186 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff' s Court, Alathur against the respondent for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff claimed to be an assignee of the cultivating tenant. The claim of tenancy was disputed by the defendant and therefore the matter was referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal by order dated 8-10-1987 found against the claim of tenancy made by the plaintiff. Accepting that finding, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 20-12-1988.

(2.) Challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed A. S. No. 18 of 1989 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. The appeal was filed on 6-2-1989: Along with the appeal an application I. A. 117 of 1989 was filed for numbering the appeal, accepting the certified copy of the judgment of the Trial Court. In the affidavit accompanying that application, the plaintiff stated that he had applied for printed copy of the judgment of the Trial Court and that necessary charges for the same have been deposited. It was stated therein that he did not receive printed copy of the judgment and as urgent orders are necessary, he filed the appeal with the certified copy. The appellate court passed an order on 8-2-1989 allowing I. A. No. 117 of 1989 and directing the appellant to produce the printed copy of the judgment at the time of hearing.

(3.) It would appear that the order passed by the Land Tribunal was not appended to the judgment of the Trial Court. The plaintiff raised a contention in the appeal that the judgment of the Trial Court was void since the order of the Land Tribunal was not appended to the judgment. It would also appear that the defendant filed I. A. No .165 of 1989 before the Trial Court, praying for appending the order of the Land Tribunal with the judgment. That application was allowed as per order dated 6-2-1989. The plaintiff challenged that order in C. R. P. 608 of 1989 before this Court. The Revision was dismissed by order dated 5-6-1989.