Disposed

Devasia v. Joseph

Kerala HC21 Feb 2011CRP/461/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order where the trial court declined to refer a matter to the Land Tribunal. The Court refused to decide on merits due to the age of the suit and reserved the applicants' right to raise the issue in the upcoming appeal.

What did the court decide?

Reservation of the right to raise contentions in the appellate court; petition disposed of not on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Devasia Vs Joseph — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶36

Kottayam challenge the order passed by the trial
court in I.A.No.3542 of 2006, by which the court
below held that it is not necessary to refer the
case to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of
the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

¶38

revision is whether on the pleadings, a reference
to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act is required and whether
the order passed by the court below is correct or
not. For the reasons mentioned below, I do not
think that such an exercise is required in the
interests of both parties and also since the suit
is of the year 2001.

¶40

3. It is submitted by the counsel on either
side that evidence was taken in the case and
arguments were over. The suit was posted for
judgment. At that time, an interim order dated
21.1.2001 was passed in this revision (which was
filed in the year 2007) staying the pronouncement
of the judgment, since both the parties expressed a
desire to explore the possibilities of a
settlement. Later, it was reported by the counsel
that the settlement talks failed.

¶42

were over and judgment was reserved, I do not think
it is required to dispose of this revision on the
merits, particularly when the suit is of the year
2001. At the same time, the interests of both
parties can be safeguarded by reserving their
respective right to put forward their contentions
in the appeal that may arise from the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.368 of 2001. In other words, the
petitioners would be entitled to contend before the

¶43

C.R.P.No.461 OF 2007 3
appellate court that a reference to the Land
Tribunal was necessary under Section 125(3) of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, notwithstanding the order
in I.A.No.3542 of 2006 and notwithstanding the

Devasia v. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sivan @ Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs Kundur Sreebhagya

Thajudeen Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Social Welfare

P.T.Mohan Babu Vs P.T.Chandra Babu

Devasia v. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sivan @ Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs Kundur Sreebhagya

Thajudeen Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Social Welfare

P.T.Mohan Babu Vs P.T.Chandra Babu

A compact analysis

Coram

P.T.K.Reena Vs Pulichanandi Ismail