It was his case that the cashew plantation was raised by him, after the lease was obtained.
As far as two other items 3 4 are companycerned, the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh companysideration.
The first respondent even set up a case that when the property was delivered to him on 4.11.1966, the delivery receipt was attested by the applicant appellant .
The first respondent companytended that the applicant was number a cultivating tenant, that a portion of item No.6 belonged to him by virtue of an oral partition effected in March, 1967 among the heirs of Koyakutti and the remaining extent of item No.6 and items 7 8 also belonged to him and he was in exclusive possession thereof.
Komukutti died in the year 1952.
The rights in the decree were purchased by him and in execution of the decree, the petition schedule properties along with other properties were attached by him, the properties were sold in Court auction and he being the successful bidder at the auction, sale certificate was issued to him on 1.7.1963.
As regards item No.5, the first respondent companytended that it belonged to her sister Ayesha Umma and on her death, her legal heirs including himself, acquired rights over that item and certain other properties.
Another companytention was raised that numbertenancy companyld have been created in the face of attachment order of the Court in O.S.No.
Item 5 is a garden house companyering an area of 1.58 acres.
Item 6, which is said to be the major item or property is cashew garden of an extent of 12.41 acres.
The land in items 1 2 was entrusted to the applicant in the year 1967 for cultivating the same on their behalf, but, they were number leased out.
He died in the year 1951.
Comment was also made on the propriety of the High Court in receiving the additional document at the stage of revision and at the same time, denying opportunity to companynter them.
It is against that order, C.R.P. 2353 of 1989, which has given rise to this appeal, was filed in the High Court.
This order was companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority, Land Reforms, Trichur by its order dated 11.8.1989.
20 of 1945 which was a money suit filed by one Ramakrishna Iyer against Kunhammed.
The revision petition was allowed by setting aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority, which were in favour of the appellant, and the application of the appellant claiming tenancy rights under Section 72 of the said Act was rejected in regard to items 1, 2 5 to 8 mentioned in the schedule to the application.
On the death of Kunhahmmed issueless, his properties devolved on his wife Kunheema Umma R 9 before the Land Tribunal and his brothers and sisters including Komukutti.
However, as regards items 3 4, the case was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh companysideration.
The appellant claimed to have purchased tenancy rights in items 3 4 from one Syed, who was a tenant under Kunhammed, through a registered document.
The 1st respondent is the brother of appellants mother Ayeshaumma and one of the sons of Komukutti.
Apart from R 9, the other heirs of Kunhahmmed and Kumukutti were added as respondents before the Land Tribunal.
Items 1, 2, 7 8 measuring about two acres are either wet lands or seed bed lands.
He also sought for issuance of Certificate of Purchase under Section 72 of the Act.
In C.R.P. No.
It transpires from the additional documents received in the C.R.P. that the attachment was effected on 21.3.1956, the sale took place on 27.5.1963, the sale was companyfirmed on 1.7.1963 and delivery was effected on 4.11.1966.
4699 of 1976, the order of the Taluk Land Board was companyfirmed and the revision was dismissed.
A certificate of purchase was ordered to be issued to the cultivating tenant.
Most of the Respondents herein are the legal representatives of the parties in that tenancy application.
The appellant filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Mannarghat on 24.8.1971 under Section 72B of the Act for the assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owners and the intermediaries as regards the schedule mentioned lands on the basis that he was cultivating tenant on the date of the companymencement of the Act.
The appellant claimed that he was cultivating the lands in items 1, 2 5 to 8 as tenant pursuant to the oral lease obtained from the legal heirs of the deceased Kunhammed including his widow Kunheema Umma prior to 1960 and that he was paying rent to the respondents 1, 2, 5, 8 9 who are the widow of Kunhammed R 9 , the widow of Kunhammeds brother Komukutti and his sons and daughters, the quantum of rent being 60 paras of paddy, 100 sheaves of straw and Rs.70 per year.
The deceased Kunhahmmed, who is the brother of one Komukutti, the maternal grand father of the appellant had kanam rights over the application schedule properties.
The first respondent, who was also the first respondent before the Land Tribunal, is the maternal uncle of the appellant.
Certain additional documents were filed before the High Court to bring to light the details relating to attachment, sale and delivery of the disputed properties.
The claim of tenancy set up by the appellant was rejected by the Taluk Land Board.
However, on a review filed by the appellant, the High Court clarified that the finding of number existence of tenancy was only for the purpose of determination of ceiling area.
The alleged signature on the delivery receipt was however denied by the appellant.
The Land Tribunal accepted the case of the appellant, assigned the right, title and interest in respect of petition schedule lands in favour of the appellant subject to the deposit of Rs.5464/ as purchase price, which was payable as companypensation to the ultimate land holder and the intermediaries.
JUDGMENT Venkatarama Reddi, J. The present appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of Kerala High Court in a revision petition filed by the first respondent herein since died under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
