Remand order by Land Tribunal in appeal

ORDER.-The 2nd Respondent, Santhakumari in M.R.I. 117 (R) NNL (A3) before the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Mayuram is the revision petitioner herein. Proceedings were taken against the revision petitioner and Ammani Ammal in respect of the lands belonging to the said petitioner and Ammani Ammal. A draft statement was published under section 10 (1) of Act LVIII of 1961. The first respondent herein filed objections under section 10 (5) of the said Act stating that the lands stated in the objection petition have to be excluded from the holdings of Radhakrishna. Naidu as he happened to be a life estate holder. According to the objector, the lands mentioned in the objection petition are vested in him and hence the same has to be deleted from the holdings and further proceedings taken in the light of the objections. The petitioner and the second respondent herein contended that the objector has no right, title or interest in the property mentioned in his objection petition and nothing has vested in him.

2. To understand the case, it is necessary to refer to certain facts of this case. One Ramachandra Naidu, had two sons by name R. G. Rajan and Radhakrishnan. Gurumurthy, the objector is the son of R. G. Rajan. Radhakrishna Naidu married one Seethalakshmi. She had no issues. It is stated by the petitioner herein that Radhakrishna Naidu married Ammani Ammal and through her he had a son by name Ramadurai and two daughters by name Santhakumari and Suryakumari. Santhakumari is the petitioner herein. Ramachandra Naidu and his two sons R. G. Rajan and Radhakrishnan originally partitioned the joint family property and each one got one-third share. It is stated that Ramachandra Naidu executed a will in 1928 itself giving life interest to Radhakrishna Naidu and after his life-time his male issue has to get the property. The objector relied upon a codicil, dated 13th March, 1940 executed by Ramachandra Naidu and stated that as per this codicil the property of Ramachandra Naidu has to be enjoyed only by the male issue through Seethalakshmi and if there is no male issue through Seethalakshmi, the objector has to get the property.

3. The authorised officer, after going through the codicils, dated 17th June, 1928 and 13th March, 1940 and after taking into consideration as to whether Gurumurthi has got a vested remainder over the property as claimed by him in his objection petition, held that since all these matters have been decided in MRI. 37(R), dated 25th November, 1970 the objector cannot reopen the same point over again. The authorised officer, holding that Ramadurai is the legal heir of Radhakrishna Naidu and that his right has already been declared in MR. I. 37 (R), dated 25th November, 1970, dismissed the objection petition.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the authorised officer, the objector preferred an appeal to the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge of Mayuram). The Land Tribunal found that the partition deed between Ramachandra Naidu, Radhakrishna Naidu and R. G. Rajan was not before the Court, that necessary parties had not been examined by the Authorised Officer as contemplated under section 10 (5) of the Act, that the prior proceedings referred to by the authorised officer have neither been marked in these proceedings nor placed before the Court and that without the earlier proceeding’s before the Court, the question of res judicata cannot be decided. The Land Tribunal also held that the will alleged to have been executed by Ramadurai in favour of Santhakumari and Ammani Ammal had not been produced before the Court. With these findings, the Land Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the authorised officer and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the authorised officer in accordance with law and also in accordance with the observations contained in the judgment of the Land Tribunal.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the petitioner herein has preferred the above civil revision petition under section 83 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document