Back
1995 Supreme(SC) 454
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.
Cheenothingal Valli, Appellant
Versus
Cheenothingal Velayudhan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.4288 of 1995 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8563 of 1991)
Decided on 28-3-1995.
M.A.Firoz, M.T.George, P.K.MANOHARAN
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish possession for claiming kudikidappu right under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Headnote:
Kudikidappu Right - Kerala Land Reforms Act - The appellant's claim for kudikidappu right was rejected by the High Court due to failure to establish possession during the relevant period.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an application for kudikidappu right, claiming possession of the property during a specific period. The High Court found that she failed to establish her possession, leading to the rejection of her claim.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court concluded that the appellant's claim under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act cannot be upheld due to the lack of evidence supporting her possession.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's claim for kudikidappu right based on possession during a specific period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's failure to establish possession, as required under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court, upholding the High Court's decision to reject the appellant's claim for kudikidappu right.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court allowing a Civil Revision Petition filed by the respondent. The appellant, Valli, is the wife of Arumughan who pre-deceased his father-Maman. The respondent, Velayudhan, is the brother of Arumughan. The appellant filed an application before the Land Tribunal under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was rejected by the Tribunal but on appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed it. The order of the Appellate Authority has in turn been reversed by the High Court.
3. The appellant claimed kudikidappu right on the ground that she was in possession of the property concerned herein during the relevant period viz., 16-8-1968 to 1-1-1970. The High Court has found, on a consideration of the evidence including the admission of the appellant herself that she has failed to establish her possession and, therefore, her claim under Section 80-B cannot be upheld. The High Court has further found that the finding to the contrary recorded by the Appellate Authority was arrived at ignoring the evidence of the appellant herself. We see no reason to disturb the finding recorded by the High Court. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1471
