BABU @ SURENDRAN Vs. RAJENDRAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 3rd Judgment Debtor in the Execution Petition, E.P. No.262/02 in O.S. No.303/1985, now on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The respondents herein are the second additional decree holder and judgment debtors 2, 4 and 5 in the execution petition.

(2.) The predecessor in interest of the 1st respondent herein had filed O.S. No.303/1985 seeking redemption and partition. One Smt. Dakshayaniamma Thankamma, the mother of the petitioner and respondents 2, 3 and 4 herein, was arrayed as the 1st defendant in the said suit and she raised a contention that she is entitled for the benefit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The trial court had then passed Ext.P1 preliminary decree for partition and redemption relegating the question of kudikidappu and now the issue is at the execution stage. Later, Ext.P2 final decree was also passed. The 1st respondent has preferred Ext.P3 Execution Petition. Pending the execution proceedings, the question of kudikidappu was referred to the Land Tribunal. As per Ext.P4 order, the Land Tribunal returned the reference to the execution court with a finding that the above-said Smt. Dakshayaniamma Thankamma (who had by then expired) was not entitled to kudikidappu. The present petitioner and respondents 2, 3 and 4 herein, who are the legal heirs of Smt. Dhakshayani Amma Thankamma, had impugned Ext.P4 order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30540 of 2005 in which this Court had rendered Ext.P5 judgment dated 31.10.2005 whereby it was held that the execution court should decide whether Ext.P4 order is a nullity to examine the question of kudikidappu independently. In pursuance of Ext.P5 judgment, the execution court has considered the question as to whether Ext.P4 order is nullity or not to examine the question of kudikidappu independently. This was so ordered by Ext.P6 order which was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.22599 of 2007 in which this court has rendered Ext.P7 judgment wherein it was ordered that Exts.P4 and P5 orders were set aside and this Court remanded the matter again to the Land Tribunal. In pursuance of Ext.P7 judgment the matter was again referred to Land Tribunal. Petitioner had given evidence as PW1. Report of the Revenue Inspector is marked as Ext.C1 and Ext.P8 report was marked as Ext.C2. Ext.C3 is the Advocate Commissioner's report. The 1st respondent had not adduced any oral evidence. Therefore, the Land Tribunal had rendered the impugned Ext.P11 proceedings dated 29.12.2014 in Reference Case, R.C. No.1 of 2008, wherein the claim of Kudikidappu was negatived.

(3.) It is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order that the petitioner has instituted this original petition. The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :