The Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order declining a reference to the Land Tribunal. The Court held that when both parties hold purchase certificates from the Tribunal, the civil court must determine validity, as tenancy is already settled.
The revision petition was dismissed; the impugned order declining the reference to the Land Tribunal was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931
CRP.No. 1264 of 2001(H)
----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/05/2001 IN IA.616/2001 IN OS.27/1994 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S): (PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 ):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AYIDRU, S/O.PONNATHAZHATH KAMMUNNY.
2. HASSANKUTTY, S/O. 1ST PETITIONER.
3. NABEESA, W/O. 1ST PETITIONER
PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT CHERPLASSERY AMSOM, PANNIYAMKURUSSY DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK.
BY MR.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
SMT.PRABHA R.MENON,
MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH ,
MR.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. JANAKY AMMA
2. CHINNAMALU AMMA
3. GOVINDA MENON
4. UNNIKRISHNA MENON
5. SREEDEVI AMMA
Kss
..2/-
...2......
CRP.NO.1264/2001
6. PADMAVATHY AMMA
7. LEELAVATHY AMMA
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 ARE THE CHILDREN OF VALIYAVEETTIL LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA AND THEY ARE RESIDING AT CHERPLASSERY AMSOM AND VELLOTTUKURUSSY DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK.
8. JANAKY AMMA, D/O. MENAKATHKUNHIKUTTY AMMA.
10. MAMMUTTY, S/O. KALATHRATHOTTATHIL ABDULLA
RESPONDENTS 8 TO10 ARE RESIDING AT PULAPPATTA AMSOM AND UMMANEZHI DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK.
R1 TO R3&R5 TO R7 BY MR.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SR. ADVOCATE, MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH. R10 BY ADV.SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, MR.R.RAJESH KORMATH, MR.ANISH S.AMBADY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.2918/2001 IN CRP.NO.1264/2001
DISMISSED
20/11/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
Kss
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.1264 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th November, 2009
ORDER
Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.27 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam are the revision petitioners. Challenge raised in the revision is against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining the request of the petitioners to refer the tenancy claim raised by the petitioners in their written statement for determination by the Land Tribunal. Respondents 1 to 8 are the plaintiffs, and 9 and 10, defendants 4 and 5. 9th respondent is reported to be no more. Suit is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In respect of the plaint properties, plaintiffs as well as defendants 1 to 3 raised rival claims as to having secured purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal recognising their tenancy rights over that property. In the written statement resisting the suit claim, revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 sought for reference on the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, declined the request vide the impugned order holding that the question of tenancy as canvassed does not arise for consideration, relying on the decision of the apex court in Thomas Antony v.
CRP No.1264/01 - 2 -
Varkey (2000(1) KLT 12(SC). Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE
srd
CRP No.1264/01 - 3 -
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil court should refer a tenancy question to the Land Tribunal when both parties already possess purchase certificates from the Tribunal regarding the same property.
Whether the civil court can determine the validity of conflicting purchase certificates issued by the Land Tribunal without a reference.
Whether the impugned order declining the reference under Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act requires interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thomas Antony v. VarkeyRelied on¶48
Thomas Antony v. Varkey (2000(1) KLT 12(SC))
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ayidru
Hassankutty
Nabeesa
Janaky Amma
Chinnamalu Amma
Govinda Menon
S.S. Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.S. Satheesachandran
Parties & counsel
