The Court can consider jurisdictional errors committed by the Land Tribunal and exercise jurisdiction under S.115 CPC. The proper consideration of evidence and the allowance of parties to adduce evidence when necessary are crucial for a fair decision.

1. The petitioner before me is the decree-holder in O. S. No. 1073 of 1974 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum. The respondent is the judgment-debtor. The suit from which this revision arises was laid for redemption of a mortgage executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on 14 3 1969. This document is marked as Ext Al in the suit. The petitioner himself obtained this property under a mortgage deed dated 7 91951. The sub mortgage in question was for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. The suit was resisted on the plea that the defendant was a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of Explanation IV to S.2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969), for short, the Act. At the trial stage the question raised by the defendant was referred to the concerned Land Tribunal The Land Tribunal, wrongly returned the records observing that the question of kudikidappu claimed under Explanation IV to S.2 (25) of the Act arose only at the time of redemption. The. trial court thereafter proceeded with the suit and passed a decree as prayed for The decree was put in execution when again the same plea was raised by the respondent, upon which the question was again referred to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal returned the finding in favour of the respondent which finding was accepted by the execution Court. It is this order that is challenged under revision.

2. The petitioner's learned counsel put forward a strong plea that the order under revision suffers from an error of jurisdiction because the finding entered by the Land Tribunal and accepted by the execution Court was not on an appreciation of the necessary ingredients of the Explanation of which support was sought. In other words, the plea of the respondent did not satisfy the requirements of the Explanation nor of S.2 (25).

3. The learned counsel for the respondent while disputing this statement also raised a plea that the revision itself was not maintainable because the Court below had not committed any error of jurisdiction, that it had only accepted the finding returned by the Land Tribunal and that the finding by the Land Tribunal cannot be made the subject-matter of a revision.

4. The property which is the subject-matter of the dispute is described as follows:

The Tribunal relied upon Ext. P-2 to P4 to hold that the scheduled building was a hut as defined under the Act. The relevant discussion is as follows:

"Ext. P-1 would show that the applicants annual income is only Rs. 1800. Ext. P-2 to P4 would show that the schedule building is a hut as defined in the K. L. R. Act."

This discussion is absolutely unsatisfactory. It is the respondent who claims the benefit of the Explanation. It is for him to satisfactorily establish how he comes within the benefit of the Explanation. The Tribunal has not discussed the evidence before it in any detail before finding that the building in question is a hut. Before applying Explanation IV to S.2 (25), the Tribunal will have to consider the various ingredients, which would make a building a hut. Explanation IV refers to a homestead being used for a residence. Unless the finding is supported by a proper appreciation of the various items of evidence, it cannot be said that there is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in arriving at the finding that the building concerned is a hut. The petitioner's counsel made a submission before me that the request by his counterpart before the Tribunal to permit him to adduce evidence was not granted. Ground No. 14 of the revision memorandum reads as follows:

"14. The Land Tribunal ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking permission to adduce evidence."

The respondent's counsel complains that in the copy of the revision memorandum served on him, this ground is absent. The statement is correct. I find ground No. 14 has been inserted in the revision memorandum and the original ground No.14 has been changed into 15. The petiti