JOSEPH LINUS Vs. SUSY MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landowner is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE application of the first respondent under S. 72b for purchase of the right, title and interest of the land owner in respect of the holding in question was allowed by the tribunal. On appeal the Appellate authority confirmed the said order by the judgment under challenge.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority before which the above order was under challenge, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner however, did not consider the grounds urged by him, challenging the observations of the Tribunal extracted above, in the right perspective. THE learned counsel argues that the petitioner had specifically challenged the above observations of the Tribunal and therefore the Appellate Authority ought to have allowed his request for a remand of the case for a denovo consideration. THE grounds urged by the petitioner before the Appellate authority in this regard reads: "the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the attested photostat copies of the correspondence between Mr. T. M. John and Mr. Joseph Linus and the appellant on the ground that the originals had not been produced. THE respondent had no case that the letters were not genuine. In fact, she had also identified the handwriting in the letters produced by the appellant before the Tribunal. THEse letters clearly indicate that Mr John was only a care-taker of the property and there never existed tenant-landlord relationship between Mr. John and Mr. Joseph Linus". This ground may suggest that the petitioner in fact wanted the Appellate Authority to have the matter considered afresh in the light of the originals of the photostat copies, he had filed before it. THE suggestion by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Appellate authority in any event, ought to have remitted the case to the Tribunal for a denovo consideration taking into account the documents be had produced before the Appellate Authority. This argument at the first blush is really attractive but considered in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme court reported in M. S. Jagadambal v. Southern Indian Education Trust (AIR. 1988 SC. 103), I am afraid the above argument is not sustainable. This is what the supreme Court has said: "we are not persuaded by the alternative contention urged by learned counsel for the respondents. THE trial court did not frame an issue as to the defendants perfecting title the suit property by adverse possession. THE defendants did not produce any evidence in support of the plea of adverse possession. It is not the case of the defendants that they were misled in their approach to the case. It is also not their case that they were denied opportunity to put forward their evidence. It is therefore, not proper for us at this stage to remand the case to enable the defendants to make good their lapse. " (Emphasis supplied)