LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. MADHAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. She is the mother of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant alone entered appearance in the Trial Court Although notice was duly served en the 2nd defendant, she did not enter appearance.

(2.) The 1st defendant contended that he was a tenant entitled to the protection of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The question as to tenancy, as claimed by the 1st defendant, was referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Act. The reference was returned by the Land Tribunal stating that the 1st defendant was not a tenant. The suit was decreed. The judgment and decree became final as there was no appeal against them. In execution proceedings from which the impugned order arises, various contentions were raised by the 1st defendant. Those contentions were rejected. The 1st defendant has not challenged the findings entered by the execution court.

(3.) The 2nd defendant who entered appearance for the first time in execution proceedings contended that she was a kudikidappukari. She therefore requested for a reference on that question to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) The court below held that there was no need to make a reference on an application by a person who, despite due notice, did not enter appearance in the Trial Court.