Dismissed

A.K.Thankamani v. Ambujam

Kerala HC17 Oct 2016CRP(LR)/532/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging a dismissal of an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), the High Court upheld the decision. The court held that the Authority correctly relied on a confirmed civil court order and that no parallel appeal was maintainable against the Land Tribunal's finding.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Registry directed to communicate order to the concerned court below.

A.K.Thankamani Vs Ambujam — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

CRP(LR).No. 532 of 2014 ()

¶6

AA 101/2013 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LR), THRISSUR

¶7

--------

¶8

PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS :-:

¶9

----------------------

¶10

1. A.K.THANKAMANI, W/O.A.S.KRISHNAN (LATE), ALOOR HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2. A.K.HARIDASAN,

¶12

S/O.A.S.KRISHNAN (LATE), ALOOR HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

3. A.K.GEETHAKUMARI,

¶14

W/O.P.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, PALLATH HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

4. A.K.SAJITHA KUMARI,

¶16

W/O.P.R.BALAKRISHNAN, PANJAL HOUSE, PANJAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

5. A.K.SURESH BABU,

¶18

S/O.A.S.KRISHNAN (LATE), ALOOR HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

6. A.K.BABURAJAN,

¶20

S/O.A.S.KRISHNAN (LATE), ALOOR HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SMT.P.R.REENA

¶22

CRP(LR).No. 532 of 2014 ()

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:

¶24

1. AMBUJAM,W/O.KONATHU @ APPUKUTAN, GOLDSMITH, ALOOR HOUSE, ALOOR P.O., MATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683.

¶25

2. PRAKASAN, S/O.KONATHU @ APPUKUTTAN, GOLDSMITH, ALOOR HOUSE, ALOOR P.O., MATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683.

¶26

3. VASANTHAKUMARI, W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY (KUTTAN), GOLDSMITH, AMMADAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 563.

¶27

4. SANTHI, W/O.GOPAN, GOLDSMITH, P.O,.PALLIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 006.

¶28

5. RATHNARANI, W/O.JAYANTHAN, GOLDSMITH, AVINISSERY P.O., OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 306.

¶29

6. JAYANTHY,

¶30

W/O.MOHANDAS, GOLDSMITH, BEACH ROAD, MANATHALA P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 506.

¶31

7. RAJANI,

¶32

W/O.RAJEEVAN, GOLDSMITH, KAVEEDU P.O., KOTTAPPADI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 505.

¶33

8. LEELA,

¶34

W/O.(LATE)THANKAMAN, GOLDSMITH, PERUMUDIYUR HOUSE, MUKKATTUPARAMBU P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 303.

¶35

9. RADHA,

¶36

W/O.(LATE) RAMACHANDRAN, GOLDSMITH, KOLANGATTUKARA HOSUE, THONNOORKARA P.O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 586.

¶37

10. VALSALA, W/O.APPU, GOLDSMITH, PERAKATH HOUSE, THAYYUR P.O., ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 584.

¶38

11. T.S.MOHANAN, S/O.SANKARAN, GOLDSMITH, THIPPILASSERY HOUSE, PATTERUPADI, THIPPILIASSERY P.O., AKKIKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 519.

¶39

CRP(LR).No. 532 of 2014 ()

¶40

12. T.S.SUNDARAN,

¶41

S/O.SANKARAN, GOLDSMITH, THIPPILASSERY HOUSE, THIPPILASSERY P.O., AKKIKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 519.

¶42

13. T.S.BABURAJAN,

¶43

S/O.SANKARAN, GOLDSMITH, THIPPILASSERY HOUSE, THIPPILASSERY P.O., AKKIKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 519.

¶44

14. PREMU,

¶45

D/O.SANKARAN, GOLDSMITH, THIPPILASSERY HOUSE, PATTERUPADI, THIPPILASSERY P.O., AKKIKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 519.

¶46

15. USHA,

¶47

D/O.SANKARAN, GOLDSMITH, THIPPILASSERY HOUSE, PATTERUPADI, THIPPILASSERY P.O., AKKIKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 519.

¶48

16. JANAKI,

¶49

W/O.KELU, GOLDSMITH, VELUR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 519.

¶50

R1 TO R3,R5 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶51

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

¶52

THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

===================

C.R.P.(L.R.) No.532 of 2014

¶57

======================= Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2016

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased A.S.Krishnan. The case of the revision petitioner was that the said Krishnan executed a 'verumpattam chit' No.2935/1122 ME by which he obtained lease hold right over the property having an extent of 42 cents in Sy No.876/01 and Sy No.80/1 of Aroor Village in Thalappally Taluk of Thrissur District. The Land Tribunal Mullassery (now Land Tribunal Chavakkad) issued purchase certificate to Krishnan as purchase certificate No.653/1977 as per orders in O.A.2996 of 1977 and 654 of 1977 in OA 2995 of 1975. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased Krishnan's brother and sister. The case of the said Krishnan was that he got plaint schedule property on the basis of lease executed in favour of Kanjangattu Tharavad and he was in possession of the property. Thereafter, he obtained purchase certificate. The case of the respondents is that the property was taken by grand father of respondent and petitiner Sankunny from Kanjangattu Tharavad. After the death of Sankunny, the right in the property

¶60

C.R.P.(L.R.) No.532 of 2014 -2-

¶61

devolved on his children. The legal heirs of Sankunny filed a suit for partition against one of the legal heirs and brother of the plaintiff, Krishnan as OS 209 of 1985. Another suit OS 192 of 1985 by Krishnan against others stating that he is the owner of the property on the basis of verumpatoom right and he had obtained purchase certificate also. Both these cases were filed before Munsiff's Court Vadakkancherry. The Munsiff Vadakkancherry referred the matter to Land Tribunal Chavakkad under Section 125 (3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act by adjudicating the title between the holders as to who is the tenant of the property. The Land Tribunal after appreciation of evidence, found that the lease was taken by the deceased Sankunny, the grand father of the petitioners 2 to 6 and the respondents herein and they have got fixing of tenure along with Krishnan, the father of the petitioners and as such, Krishnan alone cannot get right in th property.

¶62

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed AA 101 of

¶63

2013 before Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Thrissur and the Appellate Authority by impugned judgment dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Land Tribunal. This is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this revision.

¶64

When the revision came up for hearing today, the

¶65

C.R.P.(L.R.) No.532 of 2014 -3-

¶66

counsel for the respondents submitted that the reference order which was the subject matter of the suits mentioned above were taken in appeal as A.S.107 of 2010 by the revision petitioners herein and that was dismissed and that was confirmed by this Court in second appeal as well. So relying on the decisions of the civil court, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. According to the counsel for the revision petitioners, the reference itself was bad and as such the purchase certificate issued in the name of Krishnan cannot be set aside by way of this proceedings.

¶67

The counsel for the respondents submitted that this aspect has been considered by this Court in the 2^nd appeal filed by the respondents.

¶68

Admittedly, the revision petitioners father, Krishnan obtained purchase certificate in respect of the property in dispute property and some of the legal heirs of Sankunny filed O.S.209 of 1985 before Munsiff's Court, Vadakkancherry for partition of their property. Krishnan, the predecessor of the revision petitioners in that suit contended that he had got tenancy right in respect of the same and he obtained purchase certificate, as such others have no right in the same. The said Krishnan also filed O.S.192 of 1985 before the same court for a declaration that he is the owner of the

¶69

C.R.P.(L.R.) No.532 of 2014 -4-

¶70

property and others have no right. But the matter was referred to Land Tribunal to consider the question as to whether Sankunny is the tenant or Krishnan is the tenant and Land Tribunal after enquiry found that Sankunny was the original tenant and Krishan was holding the property for and on behalf of other legal heirs of Sankunny and he cannot get absolute right. Relying on that finding, the suit filed by Krishnan was dismissed and other suit, the suit filed by Sankunny's legal heirs were allowed and preliminary decree for partition was passed. Though appeal was filed by the revision petitioners in AS 107 of 2010 before the district court that was also dismissed and that was confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal. The same contentions were taken by the revision petitioners in the civil suit and the civil court after considering the rival contentions came to the conclusion that Krishnan cannot get independent right and whatever right he got is only as a legal heir of Sankunny and ordered partition of the property among the legal heirs of Sankunny.

¶71

So under such circumstances, the Appellate Authority was perfectly justified in relying on the decision of the civil court, rightly dismissed the appeal. Further, once a matter has been referred to Land Tribunal, the finding of the Land Tribunal will form part of the

¶72

C.R.P.(L.R.) No.532 of 2014 -5-

¶73

civil court records and no parallel appeal is maintainable against that. On that ground also the challenge made by the revision petitioners against the Land Tribunal Order under reference is unsustainable and the revision lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶74

In the result, revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below immediately.

¶75

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶76

SKV

A.K.Thankamani v. Ambujam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Thankamani v. Ambujam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teh Secretary,Madhur Grama Panchayath Vs Alice Montheiro

M.a.James Vs Suhara

V.V. Jojo Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Represented by Its Managing Director.

G. Sampath Vs M.Radhakrishnan

Pookkayil Kunhimuhammed Vs Mecheri Haris

Fr.Manoj Varghese Vs St.George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church