Thomas vs Subhalakshmi,D/O Thekke Madathil Ayyamani Iyyer,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 02, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1338860

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1338860
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Jun 02, 2023
Case Number: CRP/2252/1999

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thomas

Respondent

Subhalakshmi,D/O Thekke Madathil Ayyamani Iyyer,

Excerpt

.....ammal and balakrishnan, preferred an appeal claiming that her mother had obtained the said property in the year 1123me and had given it to her in the year 1986. it is without her juncture, the s.m. proceedings were initiated and adjudication was rendered by the land tribunal. the appellate authority, in turn, set aside the order of land tribunal and dropped the s.m. crp no.2252 of 1999 3 proceedings on a finding that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the kerala land reforms act. it was challenged before this court in a revision, in which the order of appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the land tribunal for consideration of claim based on kudikidappu and as cultivating tenant. the land tribunal thereon answered both the questions negatively against the petitioner and found that it is purely a lease arrangement of the building and the property appurtenant thereto commencing from the year 1966. it was upheld by the appellate authority presumably based on the finding rendered in an earlier proceedings of rent control court, wherein it was found that the denial of landlord-tenant relationship is not bonafide. the said finding had become final andconclusive. further, in o.a.no.3479/1976 of the land tribunal, mala, the very same question was agitated and concluded against the petitioner. the concurrent findings rendered by both the courts below cannot be interfered with, unless there is abnormality and patent illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. no such ground or anycrp no.2252 of 1999 4 other ground akin to that was brought to the notice of this court so as to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. hence, the revision fails and is dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge dmr/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN FRIDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRP NO. 2252 OF 1999 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.7.1999 IN A.A. 50/1996 OF LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR SM 61/1995 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, KODUNGALLUR REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: 1 THOMAS, S/o THEKKAN CHAKKU, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. (DIED) ADDL.A2 DAISY PAUL, AGED 71 YEARS, S/o POULOSE, THEKKAN HOUSE, RESIDING AT EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR (ADDL.2nd PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVE OF DESEASED 1st PETITIONER AS PER ORDER

DATED 22/07/2021 IN IA 1/2021) BY ADVS. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SUBHALAKSHMI, D/o THEKKE MADATHIL AYYAMANI IYYER, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT 2 BALAKRISHNAN, S/o THEKKE MADATHIL AYYAMANI IYYER, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR. 3 NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/o THEKKEMANAKKAL SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR. 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. PEEYUS A. KOTTAM SRI. JOE KALLIATH

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. UNNIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP No.2252 of 1999 2

ORDER

This is yet another example in which various proceedings were initiated one after another and dragged the matter for a long period and thereby defeated the administration of justice. It is a case wherein S.M. proceedings were initiated by the concerned Land Tribunal with respect to 16.75 cents of property and the building (house) situated therein against one Narayanan Namboodiri, as if he is the owner of the property.

Admittedly, there is no intermediary. Against the order

of Land Tribunal, the original owners of the property, one Subhalakshmi Ammal and Balakrishnan, preferred an appeal claiming that her mother had obtained the said property in the year 1123ME and had given it to her in the year 1986. It is without her juncture, the S.M. Proceedings were initiated and adjudication was rendered by the Land Tribunal. The appellate authority, in turn, set aside the order of Land Tribunal and dropped the S.M. CRP No.2252 of 1999 3 Proceedings on a finding that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was challenged before this court in a revision, in which the order of appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for consideration of claim based on kudikidappu and as cultivating tenant. The Land Tribunal thereon answered both the questions negatively against the petitioner and found that it is purely a lease arrangement of the building and the property appurtenant thereto commencing from the year 1966. It was upheld by the appellate authority presumably based on the finding rendered in an earlier proceedings of Rent Control Court, wherein it was found that the denial of landlord-tenant relationship is not bonafide. The said finding had become final and

conclusive. Further, in O.A.No.3479/1976 of the Land Tribunal, Mala, the very same question was agitated and concluded against the petitioner. The concurrent findings rendered by both the courts below cannot be interfered with, unless there is abnormality and patent illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. No such ground or any

CRP No.2252 of 1999 4 other ground akin to that was brought to the notice of this court so as to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision fails and is dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Thomas vs Subhalakshmi,D/O Thekke Madathil Ayyamani Iyyer, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan