NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order Ext. P2 of the appellate authority is not one which could be sustained. It is not in accordance with law. It does not conform to the requirements of an appellate judgment where the authority sitting in appeal is the final authority on facts and law. Various decisions of this court have laid down as to what exactly should be the content or the requirements of an appellate order under the Land Reforms Act. In Neelakanta Pillai v. Damodaran, 1981 KLT (Short Notes) page 44, case No. 82, Bhat, J. stated that the judgment of the appellate authority must indicate that it has applied its mind to the contentions of the parties and the evidence and the circumstances. While it is not necessary that the judgment should be a long and elaborate one, it must refer atleast in brief to the broad contentions of the parties and the evidence and the circumstances leading to the conclusion arrived at by the authority.

(2.) In Krishnan v. Kunhiraman, 1984 KLT (Short Notes) page 8 case No. 15, Sukumaran, J., dealing again with an order of the appellate authority under the Land Reforms Act stated that valuable rights are adjudicated by the Tribunals functioning under the Act and that they had an onerous responsibility. The necessity to formulate the points, to consider the evidence having a bearing on the points, to discuss the rival contentions and to project the reasons which weigh with the appellate authority for accepting the one view and rejecting the other, were all essential requirements to the exercise of the appellate power.

(3.) A Division Bench of this court had occasion to deal with the decision of an appellate authority in a matter relating to an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for default in Kadeeja Umma v. Appellate Authority ( 1984 KLT 481 .) The Division Bench proceeded on the basis that the order of the appellate authority should be one supported by reasons and not merely based on the feeling of the authority.