9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the principle of res judicata, specifically the 'might and ought' principle in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), to proceedings before the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. Determination of the status of a tenant applying for purchase of kudikidappu with reference to the date of the commencement of Act 35 of 1969 or the date of making the application. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata: The primary issue examined was whether the principle of res judicata, particularly the 'might and ought' principle, applies to proceedings before the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The court noted that the revision petitioner had previously applied for the purchase of kudikidappu rights, which were dismissed on grounds that he possessed land assigned by the government, thus disqualifying him under the Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation of the land assignment should allow him to file a new application, circumventing the res judicata bar. The court referenced the decision in Thomas v. Punnoose, where it was held that the principles of res judicata do not apply to proceedings under the Land Reforms Act. However, the court decided to examine the applicability of res judicata independently of this decision. The court reviewed several precedents, including Kelappan v. Anandan and Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, which discussed the applicability of res judicata to suits and tribunals. The Supreme Court's decisions in Burn and Co. v. Their Employees and Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and Co. v. Balmer Lawrie and Co. were cited to affirm that the principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial bodies like the Land Tribunals, as they decide important rights based on natural justice and fair play. The court concluded that the principle of finality or conclusiveness of a prior decision is applicable to the Land Tribunals under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, thus barring the petitioner's current application under Section 80-B by res judicata due to the prior order in O.A. 881 of 1971. 2. Status of Tenant for Kudikidappu Purchase: The second question, regarding whether the status of a tenant applying for kudikidappu purchase should be judged with reference to the commencement date of Act 35 of 1969 or the date of the application, was deemed unnecessary to address. The court's decision on the first issue rendered this question moot. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the principle of res judicata barred the petitioner's application for kudikidappu rights due to the prior dismissal of a similar application. The court did not express an opinion on the second issue concerning the status of the tenant, as it was not relevant in light of the res judicata finding. The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
|
