Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
- 3 -
were re-numbered before the Land Tribunal, Kodungallur and then transferred to the Land Tribunal, Thrissur. The suo motu proceedings, numbered as S.M.301/2000, was allowed by the Land Tribunal. Kunjappu and Kochuparu were held to have joint tenancy and purchase certificate was directed to be issued in both their names. The Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the Land Tribunal.
5. The question as to what would be the effect of a purchase certificate granted under the KLR Act if the tenancy devolves on more than one person is no more res integra. The certificate of purchase issued after determination under the provisions of the Act is undoubtedly conclusive proof under Section 72K of the Act and the purchase certificate would definitely inure to the benefit of all co-owners. I notice that in C.R.P.633 of 1985 filed by the assignees, this Court even at that stage, noticed the contention of the assignees that the purchase certificate issued to Kunjappu, in the facts of the case, can be challenged only by filing a suit in the civil Court, as held in Velappan v. Thomas, 1979 KLT
the inter se disputes among cultivating tenants, however, could not be decided by the Land Tribunal. This view was clarified in Paul v. State of Kerala & Another, 1981 KLT 721, by the very same Division Bench. Here, an Association and an individual; both obtained two separate purchase certificates with respect to the very same land. The Appellate Authority held that the individual was only an employee of the Association and the real tenant was the Association itself. It was clarified that in a proceeding before the Land Tribunal where there are rival claims as to tenancy, necessarily the Land Tribunal could only issue a purchase certificate to the claimant found to be a cultivating tenant under the Act. But, it was reiterated that if the tenancy devolves on more than one person and one of the co-heirs obtains a purchase certificate, it will inure to the benefit of the other co-heirs.