The revision petitioners in CRP.Nos.108 and 243 of 2013 are not parties to the order impugned. They are aggrieved on account of the fact that they are allegedly in occupation of a portion of the land included in the account of the declarant. The remedy if any of the revision petitioners in CRP.Nos. 108 and 243 of 2013 lies elsewhere. The revision petitioners have to move the Taluk Land Board itself under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The revision petitioners can seek to set aside the impugned order of the Taluk Land Board on establishing that they are persons interested. Any application filed by the revision petitioners under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act within a period of one month from today shall be dealt with on merits.
2. CRP.Nos. 108 and 243 of 2013 are hence dismissed without prejudice to their right to pursue the remedy as above.
3. The first respondent in CRP.No.742/2013 is the son of the declarant in his second wife. The second respondent is the daughter of the declarant in the first wife of the declarant. The State of Kerala has filed CRP.No.742/2013 challenging the order of the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board has by the order impugned allowed the claim put in by the second respondent.
4. The second respondent claims to be the daughter in the first wife of the declarant by name Samla Beevi. It is stated that the first wife of the declarant has 5 children. It is submitted that the declarant married one Ramla Beevi again. The second wife and the 6 children born to her have been adopted by the declarant. Such adoption has been made for the purpose of Explanation 1 to Section 82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
5. The second respondent claims to be a donee under a Gift Deed (Document No.4348/1969). The Gift Deed dated 12.2.69 is allegedly executed by the father of the declarant by name Mytheen Kunju. The second respondent claims title and possession under the Gift Deed in respect of 3.12 acres. The property so gifted is stated to be in Survey No.196/6 (R.S.No.712/1A/143) of Chithira Village.
6. The second respondent cannot be treated as a member of the statutory family of the declarant. This is because the declarant has adopted the second wife and children born in her as the statutory family. The second respondent can therefore be treated as a stranger only. The claim petition put in under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act by a stranger is maintainable. [See Velayudhan v. State of Kerala (1981 KLT 696)]
7. Whether the Gift Deed (Document No.4348/1969) executed by the father of the declarant in favour of the second respondent is genuine and valid? Whether the Gift Deed has been acted upon and the property was held by the second respondent or her mother? These are pertinent questions to be addressed by the Taluk Land Board. The impugned order of the Taluk Land Board is silent as regards these vital aspects. A de novo consideration of the claim put in by the second respondent under the Gift Deed aforementioned is essential.
8. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land board. The petitioners in CRP.Nos. 108 and 243 of 2013 are free to urge their case before the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board shall hear the surviving members of the statutory family of the declarant as well as the second respondent. The final orders shall be passed by the Taluk Land Board within a period of six months.
The CRP (LR) No.742/2013 is disposed of as above.
nj.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.