K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The revision petitioner sought for fixity of tenure as a cultivating tenant before the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act(for short the 'KLR Act'). The claim set up by the revision petitioner before the Land Tribuanal was through his father Paulo who is said to have been granted a tenancy by the original landlord(Ittikuriyathh); of 70 cents of property. Paulo having cultivated the said land in his life time; the same devolved on his son, the revision petitioner, on Paulo's death. Paulo and Korath had been cultivating the said land continuously and had been the tenants in occupation of the said lands. Korath, is a cultivating tenant entitled to cultivate the said lands as visualised by the KLR Act.

2. The respondents herein who were the great- grandchildren of Ittikuriyathh set up a claim that Ittikuriyathh had in fact by a will of the year 1957 set apart these properties for them and they being minors, at that point of time, their father Paulose had been looking after the affairs of the said property. The said Paulose was originally the respondent in the revision petition and having taken up the said contention on behalf of his children, the revision petitioner impleaded the respondents herein. The defence set up by the father and children who were the respondents before the Tribunal was that the father having been in possession of the said property on behalf of the minors, was incompetent to create any tenancy which the claimant could claim as having crystallized under the Act.

3. The Land Tribunal having found against the claimant, the claimant was in appeal before the appellate authority twice, which ended in remand. The appellate authority in the second round; by order dated 31.12.1985 in LRA 116/1982 remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal, however, with certain observations. The Land Tribunal took up the matter afresh and permitted both parties to lead evidence. PW1 to PW4 were examined on the side of the claimant. Alias, one of the great-grandchildren of Ittikuriyathh, the first respondent herein, was examined as RW1. The Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the tenant which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. The appellant is before this court in revision from the above orders. The questions of law raised by the revision petitioner are re-framed as hereunder:-

1. Whether the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority were correct in their finding that the claimant failed to esatablish the tenancy from the year 1941 by Ittikuriyathh to Paulo and also in the finding that the further lease admitted by Paulose, the first respondent to the claimant in the year 1960 was bad for the reason of Paulose being incompetent to create such a tenancy on the subject lands?

2. Are not the orders impugned vitiated for non-consideration of relevant materials?

3. Whether reliance placed on the Will and the recitals to find that the claimant's tenancy is not correct since the same has not been mentioned in the Will, is proper and would not such finding be perverse?

4. Whether by the specific recital in the Will it could be found that Paulose had not been holding the said property merely as a guardian of his minor children and was it not evident, on the contrary that Paulose had been conferred with absolute rights in his life time?

5. Whether the Land Tribunal could have granted resumption of land as per its order in the context of there being no such application and whether for that sole reason is not the order of the Land Tribunal vitiated?

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.N.M. Mohamed Ayub as also the learned senior counsel Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan for the respondents. At the outset the learned senior counsel would submit regarding the last question framed; that, it cannot for a moment be said that the resumption of lands has been ordered by the Land Tribunal. According to him the resumption of land can be applied for by the landlord only as against the cult