ABDULSALAM HAJI Vs. MAMOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land in dispute, comprised in T. S. No. 839, Ward I block 16 Cannanore Municipality, belonged to Arrakkal Adiraja Hariss Koyamma thangal jenmi. This was outstanding in the possession of Kinakkool Vayalipath kadeesumma, the predecessor in interest of respondents 1 to 6 in the revision petition. THEse facts are admitted. It is in this background the case set up by the petitioner requires to be considered.

(2.) FACTS relevant and requisite to consider the case of the petitioner can briefly be stated thus: On 20-11-1962 the mother of the petitioner namely Kadeesumma, the predecessor in interest of respondents 1 to 6 orally leased the land in his favour and since then he has been in possession of the land effecting improvements, letting out the buildings on the land and paying building tax and land revenue. Immediately after the oral lease, the petitioner granted a melpattom evidenced by Ext. B39 dated 3-11-1962. He has been giving purappad to the jenmi. Arakkal Adiraja Hariss Koyamma, the jenmi, assigned his jenmom right to the petitioner as is seen from Ext. B90 dated 13-3-1972. A 'j form' (within the meaning of KLR Act)signed by him was also handed over to the petitioner by the jenmi. The 'j form' was filed before the Land Tribunal Cannanore under S. 72mm and that is evidenced by O. A. No. 644/1973. In the meantime, Kadeesumma, that is the predecessor in interest of respondents 1 to 6 had filed the application, O. A. 640/1973 under s. 72b KLR Act impleading the landowner Arakkal Adiraja Harris Koyamma Thangal as a respondent. The landowner Harris Koyamma Thangal resisted the said application contending that Kadeesumma was no longer a tenant as she had orally leased ( hmmnmv ) the land to her eldest son Abdulsalam Haji, the petitioner herein. Accepting the contentions of the petitioner (which stand supported by the pleadings of the landowner Harris Koyamma Thangal) the Land Tribunal allowed O. A. 644/1973, the joint application filed under S. 72mm. Consequently o. A. 640 1973 filed by Kadeesumma under S. 72b was dismissed.

(3.) THE Land Tribunal, Tellicherry after evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions, by a common order, found that the petitioner is the cultivating tenant of the holding and as such entitled to get the purchase certificate. THE purchase certificate accordingly was granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, respondents 1 to 6 filed two appeals, A. A. No. 213 and 214 of 1982; A. A. 213/1982 arising from O. A. 14/1981 and A. A. 214/1982 arising from O. A. 15/1981. THEse two appeals were allowed by the common judgment under attack. THE Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal that the petitioner has established the oral lease granted to him, by Kadeesumma, the predecessor in interest of respondents 1 to 6 in 1962 and as such he alone is entitled to obtain the purchase certificate.