JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE declarant is the revision-petitioner. By an order dated 28-2-1977 the Taluk Land Board, Thodupuzha, directed the revision-petitioner to surrender an extent of 8 acres and 25 cents of land. Aggrieved by the said order, the declarant filed C. R. P. No. 1344 of 1977 before this Court. THE declarant's son also filed another revision C. R. P. No. 1343 of 1977 challenging the same order. It was contended before this court that in 1966 the declarant had gifted to his sons Mathai and George 9 acres and 61/4 cents of land and in determining the total extent to be surrendered, the Taluk Land Board did not exempt this area and treated these lands as the properties owned and possessed by the declarant. It was also contended that the gift deeds are evidenced by registered documents and are of the year 1966. This court set aside the impugned order and directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the question afresh after hearing the declarant as well as his sons who are persons interested before taking a fresh decision on the excess land to be surrendered by the declarant.

(2.) . After remand, the declarant produced document No. 910 of 1966 on the file of the Thodupuzha Sub Registry which showed that 9 acres and 61/4 cents of land was sold to his sons Mathai and George for a consideration of Rs. 600/ -. It is also recited in the document that the consideration was paid in cash by the transferees. Affidavit of one of the transferees was also produced in which it was stated that an extent of 4 acres and 531/4 cents of land was transferred to him and though the document was styled as a sale deed and consideration of Rs. 300/- was mentioned as having been paid in cash by him, in fact, no consideration was paid. The declarant also filed an affidavit in similar terms. Another affidavit of one Chacko who is stated to be a neighbouring owner, has also been filed which stated that at the time of the sale, the land value was not less than Rs. 5000/- per acre in this area. The Taluk Land Board was not inclined to act upon the affidavits as against the clear recital in the document that the consideration was paid in cash,

(3.) IN the circumstances, we find no way to accept the contention of the revision-petitioner that the transaction evidenced by document No. 910 of 1966 was a gift and the area covered by the said document would be exempted in determining the total extent of land that is available to be surrendered by the revision petitioner.