- (1.) THE High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short "the Act"), upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal as well as by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority (for short "the Appellate Authority"). Hence, the tenant is in appeal in this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the High Court.
(2.) THE first appellant tenant filed an application under S.72B(3) of the Act for the purchase of jenm rights in the land in question. The Land Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties, concluded that the first appellant was in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant. In that view, the said application was allowed and the rights were granted, as sought for in the application. The respondents challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, on reappreciation of the entire evidence placed on record in the light of the contentions urged before it, affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal. We may add here that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is a detailed and well considered order dealing with every piece of evidence. Aggrieved by and not satisfied even with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondents pursued the matter further by filing a revision petition before the High Court under S.103 of the Act. The High Court, as already noticed above, found fault with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Authority. As can be seen from the impugned order, there has been reappreciation of the evidence by the High Court as if it was exercising its jurisdiction as an appellate court. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court committed manifest error in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact exceeding the jurisdiction conferred under S.103 of the Act. The learned counsel contended that, having regard to the scope of S.103 of the Act, the High Court could have interfered with the order passed by the Appellate Authority only if the Appellate Authority had decided any question of law erroneously or failed to decide the question of law that arose for consideration. The learned counsel added that even having regard to the evidence that was placed on record, the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority were perfectly justified in arriving at a conclusion that the first appellant established his case; even otherwise, it was not a case where such findings of fact could not be reasonably arrived at. In other words, it could not be said that the findings of fact recorded were perverse or based on no evidence or any material evidence was not considered. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the two decisions of this Court in Mathai Thomas v. Ouseph Anna (1998 (8) SCC 550) and in Kerala Ayurveda Vydyasala Ltd. v. Pandara Valappil Kallianai (1999 (3) SCC 238).
(3.) PER contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submission supporting the impugned order. He urged that when the appellant failed to prove his possession over the land in question, the High Court was right in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Land Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Authority.;