BABY vs TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD & ORS. Supreme Court, 06-11-1998

JudgeS.B.MAJMUDAR,M.JAGANNADHA RAO
Date06 November 1998
Parties BABYTRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD & ORS.
CourtSupreme Court (India)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BABY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/11/1998
BENCH:
S.B.Majmudar, M.Jagannadha Rao
JUDGMENT:
DER
Leave granted.
These appeals are filed against the judgment of the
High Court in revision given under the Kerala Land Reforms
Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court set
aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 20th
Dec. 1989 which affirmed the order of the Land tribunal
dated 24th Nov., 1980. The dispute between the parties
before the international was as to whether the appellant
before us was the cultivating tenant.
A limited notice was issued in these appeals as to
whether the High Court had acted within its jurisdiction
under Section 103 of the Act. That Section reads as under:
"103, Revision by High Court :- (1) Any
person aggrieved by -
(i) any final order passed in an appeal
against the order of the Land Tribunal; or this Act;
or
(ii) any final order passed by the Land
Board Under this Act; or
(iii) any final order of the Talok Land
Board under this Act,
Learned senior counsel for the appellant contended
that the Taluk Land Board and the Appellant Authority have
not failed to decide any question of law nor could it be
said that any such question was erroneously decided. The
High Court had interfered with the order of the tribunals on
the ground that several material documents including
judicial proceedings were not adverted to by the tribunals.
The High Court held that the legal effect of these documents
was not considered by the tribunals. On those grounds, it
was argued the High Court was not entitled to interfere
under Section 103 of the Act. Learned senior counsel for
the appellant submitted that if certain documents were not
considered or their legal effect was not taken into
consideration, still that did not amount to an erroneous

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT