IMPORTANT POINT
Power of revision vested in the High Court is wide and it is not limited only to the question of law or jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam, in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1172 and 1173 of 1997(D), whereby the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the respondents and upheld the common judgment and order of the Land Tribunal, Nileshwar, dated 16.10.1991 passed in O.A.No.51 of 1986 and I.A.No.61 of 1986 in S.M.P.No.1474 of 1976 and set aside the common judgment and order of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur, dated 20.03.1997 passed in A.A.No.221 of 1991 and A.A.No.233 of 1991.

3. For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals, with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder:

It is an admitted fact that the petition schedule property originally belonged to Vaddakke Kovilakam of Nileshwar. It is the case of the respondents that Aboobacker Haji, who is now deceased had obtained an oral Kuzhikanam in the year 1957 and while doing so, the members of the aforesaid Vadakke Kovilakam entered into a partition in the year 1959 and the petition schedule property along with other extent was allotted to Smt.V.C.Mahaprabha Thamburatti and her children as per schedule ‘D’ in the partition deed and the deceased Aboobacker Haji had been paying purappad to jenmi Kovilakam. The members of the Kovilakam, entered into another partition in the year 1974 and as per the same, the petition schedule property is allotted to Smt. V.C.Mahaprabha Thamburatti and her female children as per schedule ‘A’ in the partition deed.

4. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased V.C. Rama Varma Raja (Jr.), the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.51 of 1986 and the respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased Aboobacker Haji, the original applicant in O.A.No.51 of 1986 on the file of the Land Tribunal. A joint application (J Form) i.e. O.A.No.51 of 1986, was filed by the deceased Aboobacker Haji along with the 1st respondent in O.A. 51 of 1986, Kerala Varma Raja, who was also shown as the land owner by the deceased Aboobacker Haji, before the Land Tribunal for the purchase of Jenm right in respect of 0.12 Cents of land in Re.Sy.435/2B, under the provisions of Section 72MM(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, (in short “the Act”) as amended by the Act 17 of 1972. The predecessor of the appellants i.e. deceased V.C. Rama Varma Raja (Jr.), got himself impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and disputed the tenancy of the deceased Aboobacker Haji. The deceased V.C. Rama Varma Raja (Jr.) has further contended in the proceedings that he is the tenant of the properties and that he has already obtained an order for the purchase of the Jenm right in respect of the land in question as per the order in S.M.P.No.1474 of 1976 of the Land Tribunal.

5. The deceased Aboobacker Haji filed I.A.No.61 of 1986 under Section 72MM(7) of the Act, seeking to set aside the order passed in S.M.P.No.1474 of 1976, by the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal by its judgment and order allowed the application of the deceased Aboobacker Haji without any liability and held that he is the cultivating tenant of the schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the deceased V.C. Rama Varma Raja (Jr.) filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, questioning the correctness of the order of the Land Tribunal on various grounds. The Appellate Authority has set aside the judgment and order of the Land Tribunal and upheld the order passed in S.M.P.No.1474 of 1976 obtained by the predecessor of the appellants earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed a Civil Revision Petitions before the High Court, by its order dated 23.03.2009, allowed the same by holding that the