Kerala High Court
Moosa (Died) vs Indira on 14 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 295
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941
CRP.No.221 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SM 58/1997 DATED 30-09-1997 OF LAND
TRIBUNAL-II, KASARAGOD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN A.A.47/1998 DATED 08-04-1998 OF
APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
MOOSA (DIED),
S/O ABDULLA, RESIDING AT CHENNARVALAPPU, SHIRIBAGILU
VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK.
SUPPLEMENTAL REVISION PETITIONERS*:
2 SULEKHA,
W/O LATE MOOSA, AGED 62 YEARS,
CHENNARVALAPPU, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE,
KASARAGODE TALUK.
3 ABDULLA,
S/O LATE MOOSA, AGED 38 YEARS,
CHENNARVALAPPU, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE,
KASARAGODE TALUK.
4 SUHARA,
D/O LATE MOOSA, AGED 36 YEARS,
CHENNARVALAPPU, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE,
KASARAGODE TALUK.
5 MOHAMMED,
S/O LATE MOOSA, AGED 34 YEARS,
CHENNARVALAPPU, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE,
KASARAGODE TALUK.
C.R.P.No.221/2009
2
6 KHADEEJA,
D/O LATE MOOSA, AGED 32 YEARS,
CHENNARVALAPPU, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE,
KASARAGODE TALUK.
7 MARIYAMMA,
D/O LATE MOOSA, AGED 30 YEARS,
CHENNARVALAPPU, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE,
KASARAGODE TALUK.
8 AYISHA,
D/O LATE MOOSA, AGED 22 YEARS,
CHENNARVALAPPU, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE,
KASARAGODE TALUK.
* SUPPLEMENTAL REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED
AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PETITIONER AS PER ORDER
DATED 08.08.2014 IN I.A.NO.1837/2014 IN CRP 221/2009.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
SMT.S.AMINA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIRA,
D/O LATE RAMA VARMA RAJA,
RAMANTHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.MAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
2 RAJAN,
S/O.LATE RAMA VARMA RAJA,
RAMANTHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.MAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
3 RAVI,
S/O.LATE RAMA VARMA RAJA,
RAMANATHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.MAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
4 JAYA,
D/O.LATE RAMA VARMA RAJA
RAMANTHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.MAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
5 SHASHI,
S/O.LATE RAMA VARMA RAJA,
RAMANTHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.MAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
C.R.P.No.221/2009
3
6 RADHAKRISHNAN,
S/O.LATE RAMA VRMA RAJA
RAMANTHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.PAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
7 KRISHNA MOHAN RAJ,
S/O.LATE RAMA VARMA RAJA,
RAMANTHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.MAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
8 GOPINATH,
S/O.LATE RAMA VARMA RAJA,
RAMANTHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.MAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
9 MAHALAXMI,
D/O.LATE RAMA VARMA RAJA,
RAMANTHARASU, MAIPADDY PALACE,
P.O.MAIPADY, KASARGODE TALUK.
10 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.P.PRADEEP
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2019, THE COURT ON 14.08.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.R.P.No.221/2009
4
O R D E R
The revision petitioners 2 to 8 are the legal heirs of Moosa, the 1st petitioner, who died pending this C.R.P. The 1st petitioner claims to be a cultivating tenant in respect 1.85 Acres of land comprised in Re-survey No.11/1 of Shiribagilu Village in Kasaragode District. According to him, he obtained the property on Chalageni Lease from the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 9 in the year 1956, on an annual contract rent of Rs.12/-. He cultivated the land, planted coconut and cashew trees, constructed a house, dug a well and has been enjoying the property without any let or hindrance from the commencement of the lease.
2. Suo motu proceedings were initiated under Section 72C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to issue the purchase certificate to the 1 st petitioner and Ext.C1 report dated 24.12.1996 was filed by the Special Revenue Inspector (LR)-II, Kasaragode. From among the respondents, the 7th respondent alone resisted the claim C.R.P.No.221/2009 5 of the 1st petitioner contending that the lease is after 01.04.1964 and that the contract rent was Rs.200/- per year. The 1st petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to fixity of tenure or issuance of purchase certificate.
3. The Land Tribunal No.II, Kasaragode vide order in S.M.No.58/97 dated 30.09.1997 came to the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence regarding the tenancy in favour of the 1st petitioner and that the rent receipt at Ext.A1 dated 29.03.1958 does not appear to be genuine. The basic tax receipts at Exts.A2 and A3 are of the year 1996 and therefore, the suo motu proceedings were dropped.
4. The 1st petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (LR), Kannur challenging the impugned order of the Land Tribunal as A.A.No.47/98. In that, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Land Tribunal by stating that the only document pertaining to the lease is an unsigned receipt, and not acceptable in evidence. The tax receipts were pertaining to the years 1995-96, and hence not acceptable. The cultivation in the property appeared to C.R.P.No.221/2009 6 be not older than 15 years. Hence, there is no evidence to prove that the property was in possession of the 1st petitioner as tenant prior to 01.04.1964.
5. Heard both sides. Documents perused.
6. In the light of the provisions under the KLR Act, it is for the tenant to prove that he was in possession and cultivating the land prior to 01.04.1964. The evidence adduced by the tenant has to be appreciated by the fact finding Tribunal in its proper legal perspective and it is not open to this Court to exercise its revisional power to reverse the concurrent finding of the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority on a mere re-appreciation of evidence (P.K.Mohd.Shaffi v. Pallalth Mohd.Haji (dead) by L.Rs. & others, 2003 KLT 360: 2003 (10) SCC 94: AIR 2003 SC 2732 relied upon).
7. In the instant case, the Land Tribunal as also the Appellate Authority have categorically found that the evidence adduced by the 1st petitioner is not adequate to prove his tenancy right. Sitting on revision, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence C.R.P.No.221/2009 7 and find that the evidence adduced by the 1st petitioner is adequate to prove his tenancy. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the 7th respondent, who alone is contesting, has not produced any document to prove that the tenancy is subsequent to 01.04.1964, is not acceptable. The primary burden is on the 1st petitioner to prove that the tenancy existed prior to the statutory date. The mere fact that the respondents did not produce any evidence to disprove the tenancy cannot go in favour of the 1st petitioner. The C.R.P. is therefore not maintainable.
In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
dkr JUDGE