The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dedication for religious purpose or to an idol does not require registration and does not constitute a transfer as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of ownership and interest of the donor in the property, leading to the rejection of the claim by A party No. 11.

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Essentially, the dispute in the Civil Revision Petition is between A party No. 9, K. Babu and A party No. 11, Mogera Nema Daivasthana Parankila; as arrayed before the Land Tribunal, Kasaragode. The proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as K.L.R. Act) was with respect to 3.29 acres in R.S. No. 260/ 4 of Mangalpady Village, Kasaragod Taluk. Suo motu proceedings S.M. No. 35/71 was initiated by the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod and title and interest over the above referred 3.29 acres was assigned in favour of Venkappadas (A party No. 1). B Party No. 3, Narayana Shenoy filed an appeal numbered as AA/Kozhikode/811/1972 and Appellate Authority (LR) Kozhikode by its judgment dated 21.7.1973 set aside the order in appeal and remanded it for fresh consideration. On remand the proceedings were renumbered as S.M. No. 1253/1976. During the pendency of the same, Venkappadas having died, his legal heirs assigned the property in favour of five different persons. A party No. 9, K. Babu, was assigned 1.78 acres. The dispute in the above revision is only with respect to the said assignment to A party No. 9; more specifically with respect to 50 cents out of 1.78 acres so assigned. A party No. 11 claiming under B party No. 3 contended that the said 50 cents was set apart for a foundation by Ext. B16. Whether Ext. B16 is a gift deed compulsorily registerable or an instrument of dedication not liable to be registered is the issue highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner in the revision, (A party No. 11). The counsel for the 5th respondents party No. 9) would, however, contend that Narayana Shenoy (B Party No. 3), who is said to have executed Ext. B16 was not competent to deal with the 50 cents described therein as a gift or as a dedication.

2. Coming back to the chronology of proceedings before the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, S.M. No. 1253/1976, after assignment by Venkappadas's legal heirs, inter alia included A party No. 9, claiming under Venkappadas (A party No. 1) and A party No. 11, claiming under Narayana Shenoy (B party No. 3). The Land Tribunal having found the possession of 50 cents in favour of A Party No. 11 assigned the same to A party No. 11 as per order dated 31.8.1975. Five other purchase certificates were also issued in the very same proceedings.

3. A party No. 9 filed an appeal as AA No. 41/1987 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority categorically found that the assignment of 50 cents of land in favour of the 9th respondent (A party No. 11) was without any basis and without any evidence and set aside the same on the strength of such findings. However, finding procedural irregularities in six certificates of purchase having been issued in a solitary S.M. proceeding, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. Admittedly, the said proceedings with respect to 50 cents of land had become final and the order of remand was only on the count of the procedural irregularities noticed by the appellate authority.

4. Be that as it may, before the Land Tribunal on remand, A Party No. 11 produced Ext. B16. On the strength of Ext. B16, it was claimed that the possession of 50 cents of property was dedicated as a "Bhandaram" and the Adalthedars (Managers) of Magarthi Nema Temple of Parankila in Mangalpady Village at Kasaragode Taluk was put in possession of the said property. On a consideration of Ext. B16, the Land Tribunal upheld the contention of A party No. 9 that it is only a gift deed and the same having not been registered; no right over the 50 cents of property, flows from the said document. The Land Tribunal also considered the evidence adduced by both sides with respect to the conflicting claims made on the 50 cents of property. The Commission report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, taken out at the instance of A party No. 11, as also the report of the Special Revenue Inspector were elaborately c