LAWS(KER)-1978-8-1

BALACHANDRAN Vs. RAMAN ALIAS APPUTTY

Decided On August 16, 1978
BALACHANDRAN Appellant
V/S
RAMAN ALIAS APPUTTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application filed under S.80B of Kerala Act I of 1964, for purchase of a kudikidappu and the land adjoining thereto, the revision petitioner (person in possession of the land) contended that the applicant was possessed of other lands exceeding ten cents. The applicant's status as a kudikidappukaran was thus questioned. But no evidence was adduced to establish this plea, and therefore the Land Tribunal allowed the purchase. In appeal before the Appellate Authority also, the same process was repeated i.e. the plea was raised, but without evidence in support. Naturally, that Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) In this Court, two documents have been produced, along with C.M.P. No. 10955/76 These show that the applicant/kudikidappukaran bad obtained 15 cents of land under the will of his father, registered in 1969. There is no indication as to when the father died and when the son became entitled to the land. The two sale deeds are of the years 1975 and 1976; and between these, the entire 15 cents have been transferred away. The application before the Land Tribunal was made in 1972. The Appellate Authority's order was on 23-2-1976. Thus, the 1st respondent must have become the owner of the land at least when the matter was pending before the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Relying on the decision in Purushan v. Prakasan ( 1977 KLT 10 ), ii is urged by the revision petitioner that the acquisition of 15 cents is sufficient to disqualify the applicant, and to hold that he is disentitled to an order of purchase. The above case had also arisen from a purchase application under Sec 80 B. The kudikidappukaran and his wife had acquired 85 cents of land while the purchase application was pending before the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application notwithstanding evidence of the above acquisition, but the Appellate Authority reversed the order. This decision of the Appellate Authority was confirmed by my learned brother Balagangadharan Nair J. on the ground that a supervening event, altogether destroying the applicant's character as a kudikidappukaran, can be taken note of even by the appellate or revisional court. But before so confirming, the learned Judge adverted to the provisions of S.75(1)(iv) of the Act and recorded the finding: