KORAN Vs. KAMALA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has come on before a Full Bench to consider two principal questions that appeared to arise for determination, viz. (1) the applicability of the principle of res judicata, and in particular, the principle of 'might and ought' embodied in Explanation IV to S.11 of the C. P. C. to proceedings before the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act; and (2) the question whether the status of a tenant who applies for purchase of kudikidappu has to be judged with reference to the date of the commencement of Act 35 of 1969 i. e. 1-1-1970 or with respect to the dale of making the application The latter part of the first question does not actually arise on the facts; and the second question does not fall for consideration in view of our answer to the first part of the first question.

(2.) The revision is by the unsuccessful petitioner who applied for purchase of kudikidappu rights under S.80B of the Land Reforms Act. The application was allowed by the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod. An appeal from she order of the Tribunal was allowed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kozhikode, and the application for purchase of kudikidappu was directed to be dismissed. The reason, for the dismissal of the application was that two prior applications for purchase of the kudikidappu had been dismissed. O. A No. 381 of 1970 which was dismissed on 15-11-1971, and O. A. 881 of 1971 dismissed on 11-11-1971. The latter application was dismissed on the ground that the applicant petitioner had 3.66 acres of land on registry under the rules for assignment of Government lands for settlement of agricultural labourers which had been assigned in his favour in 1966, and therefore was disentitled under the Act to claim the status of a kudikidappukaran.

(3.) Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the assignment of Government lands to him had been cancelled on 11-8-1971 and this circumstance would make a difference which would enable him to maintain the present application and which would therefore enable him to steer clear of the bar of res judicata. He cited the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Thomas v. Punnoose ( 1973 KLT 1000 ) holding that neither the Land Reforms Act nor the Rules prohibited the filing of a second application and that the principles of res judicata embodied in S.11 of the CPC. and other similar provisions do not apply to proceedings under the Act. An appeal was taken against the judgment of the learned Judge and a Division Bench, of which one of us (myself) was a member, sustained the judgment of the learned Judge on different grounds altogether and held that no question of res judicata would arise on the facts (vide the decision in Thomas v. Punnoose ( 1975 KLT 406 ). The question of the applicability of the principle of res judicata should therefore be examined dehors the above decision.