JUDGMENT

P. 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 ). 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. As far as two other items (3 & 4) are concerned, the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Items 1, 2, 7 & 8 measuring about two acres are either wet lands or seed-bed lands. Item 5 is a garden house covering 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.

2. 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 commencement of the Act. He also sought for issuance of Certificate of Purchase under Section 72 of the Act. Most of the Respondents herein are the legal representatives of the parties in that tenancy application.

3. 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. He died in the year 1951. The 1st respondent is the brother of appellant s mother Ayeshaumma and one of the sons of Komukutti. 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. Komukutti died in the year 1952. Apart from R-9, the other heirs of Kunhahmmed and Kumukutti were added as respondents before the Land Tribunal. The first respondent, who was also the first respondent before the Land Tribunal, is the maternal uncle of the appellant. 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 Kunhammed s 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. It was his case that the cashew plantation was raised by him, after the lease was obtained. 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.

4. The first respondent contended that the applicant was not 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. 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 not leased out. As regards item No.5, the first respondent contended 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 contention was raised that no tenancy could have been created in the face of attachment order of the Court in O.S. No. 20 of 1945 which was a money suit filed by one Ramakrishna Iyer against Kunhammed. The rights in the decree were purchased by him and in execution of the decree, the petition schedule properties along with other properties were atta