JAYASREE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fourth respondent filed a statement under S. 85 (2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, declaring the land owned/ possessed by him. He claimed substantial portions thereof to be plantations. According to the statement, he was not in possession of excess lands.

(2.) THE Taluk Land Board required the authorized officer to make a verification of the details contained in the statement. In his report dated 9-7-1976 , the authorized officer furnished the details. On the basis thereof, the Taluk Land board issued a draft statement to the fourth respondent on 27-7-1976 , holding that the fourth respondent had 48. 34 acres of land, of which 19. 7 acres were excess lands liable to be surrendered. THE fourth respondent objected to the draft statement. Petitioner and her mother also submitted their objections, claiming that 14. 93 acres out of the fourth respondent's holding belonged to them and maybe excluded. Item &2 to 5,8 and 9 of the draft statement were the subject matter of their objections. THE declarant in his objection disowned the above extent of 14. 93 acres.

(3.) THE fourth respondent-declarant filed C. R. P. No. 3153 of 1979. Our learned brother Bhat, J. heard the above Civil Revision Petition and dismissed the same. It was observed: "it is admitted that these properties were in fact allotted to the share of the declarant in 1954 at a time when he was a student studying in North India. It was only natural for the sister and brother-in-law to help this young boy by looking after the properties. This position continued in 1964 as can be seen from the circumstance that the declarant has not been. Able to produce any document to show at any time during this period of 10 years the sister and her children even though of setting up a hostile title. It was only in 1964 that they purported to include these properties in their partition deed. THE context of this document is very important. It was executed after Act 1 of 1964 came into force. THEn and now, the declarant continues to be an adult unmarried individual with a ceiling limit of 5 standard acres or 7. 50 ordinary acres. THEre can be no doubt that as the position then stood he would have lost a considerable part of his property. It was in that context that the 1964 partition deed was brought into existence. In spite of this partition deed, in 1970 the declarant gave a declaration setting up title and possession over this property. This it appears to me, is a circumstance of considerable significance and it will outweigh whatever weight can be attached to the 1964 partition. In this view, the opinion of the authorized officer that the position is adverse deserves no weight at all. Of course, long after the proceedings started in 1974 the declarant executed a release deed in favour of his sister and her children stating that the property belongs to them and he has executed the document in regard to whatever nominal right he may have. Without anything more, the recitals in this document also cannot have much weight. THE close relationship between the parties also is worthy of note. THE declarant has no case that at anytime after 1954 he and his sister had fallen out. It is not a consideration of this circumstance, though not in this exact manner, that the land Board came to the conclusion that the petitioner who, in his declaration showed these properties as belonging to him and in his possession has not succeeded in proving that he has lost title or possession over the same. I am unable to find any reason for interference with this conclusion". It is evident from the above, that this court, in disposing of C. R. P. No. 3153 of 1979, filed by the fourth respondent, had considered the effect of that specific plea advanced by him that ever-since the family partition of 1954 the sister of the declarant (mother of the petitioner herein) and the children were in possession of the six items and that he had no children and his sister and her children treated those items as belonging to them, in the partition deed No. 3356/64 dated, 13-6-1964. This court approved the finding contained in the order of the Taluk Land Board, that the declarant was not entitled to exclude that area from his ceiling limits. It is true, that our learned brother, M. P. Menon, J. , in disposing of C. R. P. Nos. 1385 and 1434 of 1977, had indicated that the authorized officer's report at pages 83 to 88 supported the case of adverse possession advanced by the petitioner and her mother, that the partition of 1964 among them justified the case of adverse possession, which the declarant had specifically pleaded in his declaration filed in 1970, and therefore all the materials available to the Taluk Land board were in favour of the declarant, and it was difficult to sustain the findings to the contrary.