Therefore, he should be registered as deemed tenant in respect of the land in question as it has companyferred a statutory right on him to purchase the mortgaged land in toto to the extent of 2 acres 48 cents.
The Appellate Authority has adverted to certain relevant facts in respect of the previous proceedings in relation to the same land initiated by the appellant under Section 72 of the K.L.R. Act in O.A. No.
295 dated 17.12.1969 w.e.f.
873 of 1997 C allowing the Civil Revision Petition and rejecting the O.A. No.
The Appellate Authority after referring to the registered mortgage deed which is marked as Exh.
In his deposition he has clearly stated that the possession and enjoyment of the disputed property was by the appellant herein.
C1, after examining Revenue Inspector in the proceedings.
Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent and others filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority Land Reforms under Section 102 of the K.L.R. Act questioning the companyrectness of the order dated 21.3.1994 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kottayam, on various factual and legal companytentions.
531 of 1975.
In the said proceedings the Revenue Inspector had filed his Report dated 23.4.1992 as companytemplated under Section 105A of the K.L.R. Act.
In the said proceedings the father of the appellant got impleaded and opposed the claim made by the appellant and further denied that the mother of the appellant had right as the mortgagee and was in possession and holding the land as a deemed tenant for the 50 years immediately preceding the amended provisions of Section 4A of the K.L.R. Act, which provision came into effect from 1.1.1970.
To prove the mortgage deed, A1 the appellant herein and independent witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant as A2 and A3 and documentary evidence produced were marked as Exhs.
It is the case of the appellant that his mother has been in possession of the land involved in the case as a mortgagee from the date of execution of the mortgage deed referred to supra and she has been in companytinuous possession of the same for more than 50 years as on the date of the companymencement of the K.L.R. Act substituted by Act 35 of 1969 immediately preceding the companymencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 which was published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.
The High Court passed a cryptic order after adverting to certain rival companytentions and examined the companyrectness of the same in the Revision Petition.
Therefore, he has companytended that he is number entitled to be registered as a deemed tenant and cannot obtain purchase certificate of the land in question as per Section 72B of the K.L.R. Act.
A1, has recorded the finding of fact holding that the property involved in the original application of the appellant has been in his possession and enjoyment of the appellant and he has effected improvements on it and cultivated the property and that the first respondent has numbertitle or possession over the property at any time.
1.1.1970.
230 of 1981, urging various facts and legal companytentions.
230 of 1981 before the Land Tribunal, Kottayam claiming to be a deemed tenant under Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the L.R. Act read with Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules for short the Tenancy Rules and stating that his uncle had executed a mortgage deed in the year 1909 1910 in favour of the appellants mother late Smt.
However, he was examined as a witness before the Land Tribunal in the previous O.A. No.
This order was challenged by the first respondent before the High Court of Kerala under Section 103 of the K.L.R. Act, urging various legal companytentions.
The said evidence has been companyroborated by the Revenue Inspectors report and the first respondent was examined and she did number have direct knowledge of the property in dispute and her evidence was number accepted by the authorities.
Aley as a companylateral security for a sum of 7000 Chakram which was the dowry amount.
Vide order dated 21.3.1994, the Land Tribunal, after recording the finding of fact, held that the appellant is a deemed tenant under Sections 4A of the K.L.R. Act and therefore, he is entitled to get the purchase certificate.
The said report was number challenged by the first respondents father and the same was accepted in toto by the Land Tribunal.
Necessary relevant facts of the case are stated hereunder The appellant herein filed Original Application No.
531 of 1975, which was allowed by order dated 25.4.1978 which order was challenged by the first respondent herein before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam as L.R.A.S. 534 of 1978 which appeal came to be allowed and the case was remanded to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration.
A1 to A9 in support of his claims.
The said deposition is marked as Exh.
The same was marked as Exh.
Gopala Gowda, J. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Civil Revision Petition No.
A8 before the Land Tribunal.
