Judgment:
1. This Civil Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 103 of Kerala Land Reforms Act challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in S.M.P.No.35/1996 dated January 19, 1998 which is confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority ( Land Reforms), Thiruvananthapuram in A.A.No.246/1998 dated March 30, 2001.
2. A suo motu proceeding was initiated under Section 72 of Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, on receipt of the information to the effect that right, title and interest of an extent of 10 cents of land in Sy.No.871/1-2 of Kulathummal Village have vested in Government and that the second respondent/applicant is entitled to fixity of tenure over the holding. The authorised officer i.e. the Revenue Inspector conducted site inspection and filed a report to the effect that the properties are in the possession of the revision second respondent/applicant as per Ottiyumkuzhikanam deed No.1700/1967.
3. The revision petitioner who is the second respondent in the S.M. proceedings contended that 73 cents including the disputed property originally belonged to the grandfather of the revision petitioner and his sister, the revision third respondent and that he gifted the properties to them and that they orally partitioned those properties and that the disputed 10 cents of land forms part of the properties set apart to revision third respondent who is the wife of the revision second respondent, the applicant.
4. As the revision second respondent, the applicant was found to be in possession and enjoyment of the disputed property, the Land Tribunal found that he has tenancy right over the property and that he is entitled to get fixity of tenure and ordered to issue purchase certificate in his favour.
5. The revision petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority by order dated March 30, 2001 in A.A.No.246/1998 confirmed the said order of the Land Tribunal. The revision petitioner has now come up in revision challenging the said order.
6. The main contention raised by the revision petitioner is that the property comprised in 73 cents including the disputed 10 cents were partitioned between himself and his sister, the revision third respondent who is the wife of the original applicant i.e. the revision second respondent and that therefore purchase certificate should not be issued to the revision second respondent. There is no merit in the above contention. No evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner before the Land Tribunal to show that any such oral partition was affected. The question whether any such partition was affected has to be decided in a separate suit and not in the present proceedings. The Land Tribunal has found that the revision second respondent is in possession of the properties from 1967 onwards under Ottiyumkuzhikanam deed No.1700/1967 produced by him. That being so, the revision second respondent is entitled to fixity of tenure over the holding. Therefore, I confirm the impugned order of the Land Tribunal issuing purchase certificate in favour of the applicant in the S.M. proceedings which is confirmed in appeal.
7. In the result, I find the revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.