After more than 30 years litigation, that too, before various forums, the first revision petitioner seeks to advance a totally new case and seeks re-opening of the entire proceedings on the allegation of fraud. The first revision petitioner also puts forward a case in opposition to the second revision petitioner. The revision petitioners, Sukesini and Maheswari Amma were the landlords and the deceased first respondent, Sumathi was the applicant for 'kudikidappu' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act). Sumati and Sukesini were sisters and Prasanna Kumari, the formers daughter, was impleaded on the death of her mother.

2. Sumathy and Sukesini were residing respectively in T.C 24/1263 and T.C 24/1262. The claim of Sumathy for 'kudikidappu' was based on her continued occupancy of T.C 24/1263 from 1960. She claimed that she came to the possession of the land from Eswaran Thampi, father of Maheswari Amma, the original land owner, with his permission and erected a hut therein. Sukesini, her sister was impleaded as the landlord since the property in which T.C 24/1263 was alleged to be situated, being 3.75 cents, was in the ownership and possession of Sukesini at the time of filing of the application.

3. The Land Tribunal originally by order dated 9.6.1981 in O.A No.618/1980 allowed the claim. After more than 3 years Sukesini approached the appellate authority by A.A No.1257/1984. Her contention was that she did not contest the O.A as the building did not belong to her. The appellate authority condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. The case of Sukesini, recorded by the appellate authority was that she along with her sister Sumathy and Pachan Panicker their father, were residing in T.C 24/1263 on rent and the owner was one Maheswari Amma. It was also contended that Sukesini purchased 3 ¾ cents of land together with building T.C 24/1262 and she had no rights on T.C 24/1263. The order of the appellate authority though challenged by Sumathy in C.R.P No.901 /1988, the remand was confirmed.

4. On remand, the Tribunal by order dated 30.7.1990 rejected the claim of Sumathy. After remand, Maheswari Amma, the alleged owner of the land, was also impleaded in the proceedings. Before the Tribunal, Sukesini contended that Sumathy was her direct sister, who was given permission to reside in a room adjacent to the building, in which she was living along with her husband. Looking at the extracts of the Tax Register, Sukesini was found to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property and the building thereon and on the premise that a part of the building cannot be construed as 'kudikidappu', the claim stood rejected. Sumathy, being unsuccessful before the appellate authority too, was before this Court in CRP No.2520/2002. The CRP and a writ petition, W.P(C) NO.4329/2005 were disposed of by this Court on the same day.

5. I have called for the judges papers of the CRP and the WP(C). The CRP is one originally filed by deceased Sumathy and after her death, prosecuted by her daughter. While admitting the said revision this Court had granted an injunction, from being dispossessed. The writ petition was filed by the daughter when, subsequently, Sukesini obtained an injunction in a suit, against the second respondent and her two daughters from entering into the alleged kudikidappu. The writ petition alleged that the injunction order was granted in the suit only because the injunction order passed by this Court in revision was suppressed. Ext.P1 in the said writ petition is the First Information Report No.222/05 by the second respondent herein, alleging theft of about Rs. 10,000/-from the house and also demolition of the house, immediately after Sumathy's death. Ext.P3 in the said writ petition was the injunction order passed in O.S No.179/2005, the plaint of which is produced as Ext.P4. It is very pertinent that in the plaint produced as Ext.P4, filed by Sukesini, the speci