motu proceedings. That order was challenged by father of respondents 2 to 6 before Land Tribunal, Thrissur as A.A No.24/1991, 25/1991 and 26/1991 and those appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority holding that the party who wins finally in the civil suit was at liberty to approach the Land Tribunal again to agitate the tenancy issue. The suit for partition was filed by the 6th respondent herein seeking partition of the said properties and for partition of the plaint schedule properties and father of respondents 2 to 5 approached the Land Tribunal for getting his claim of tenancy adjudicated again by reopening the suo motu proceedings. That was repelled by the Land Tribunal and he filed appeal before the appellate tribunal Land Reforms, Thrissur as A.A Nos.97/1998, 98/1998 and 99/1998 and that was dismissed by the appellate authority. That was challenged by said Balan by filing C.R.P No.138/2002, 139/2002 and 140/2002 before this Court. During the pendency of the revision, the said Balan died and his legal representatives were impleaded, who are respondents 2 to 6 herein. This Court by common judgment dated 10.10.2014 disposed of the revision petitions as per Ext.P1 order remitted the case to the Land
