http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: POOVOL LAPARAMB CHATHU & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: V.P.SUDHEER & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/11/1998

BENCH: S.B.MAJMUDAR, M.JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  ORDER Leave granted. This appeal is moved by the original defendants.  In the  suit  of respondents an issue about defendants’ tenancy is not referred to  the  Lands  Tribunal  for  consideration under  Section  125  of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 by the High Court.  The relevant issue No.6 reads as under : "Issue No.  6 :Whether the defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to fixity of tenure? Relevant  provisions  of  Section  125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are extracted as under : "Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. -  (1)            No  civil  court shall have jurisdiction to settle            decide or deal with any question or  to  determine            any  matter which is by or under this Act required            to be settled, decided or  dealt  with  or  to  be            determined  by  the Land Tribunal or the appellate            authority or the Land  Board  or  the  Taluk  Land            Board  or  the  Government  or  an  officer of the            Government :            (3)If in any suit or other  proceeding  any            question   regarding   tenant  of  Kudikidappuparn            (including a question as to whether the person  is            a  tenant  or a Kudikidappukara) arises, the civil            court shall stay the suit or other proceedings and            refer such question to the  land  tribunal  having            jurisdiction  over  the  area in which the land or            part  thereof  is  situate,  together   with   the            relevant  records for the decisionof that question            only." We have heard learned counsel for  the  parties.  Mr. P.S.Poti,  learned senior counsel for the respondents invited our attention to a decision of a Full Bench of  five  learned Judges of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kesava Bhat V. Subraya  Bhat  1979  KLT  766  wherein the Full Bench of five learned Judges overruled the earlier view of a Full Bench  of five  learned  Judges  overruled  the  earlier view of a Full Bench of three learned Judges and held that as in a suit  for injunction only question of possession was relevant. An issue of  tenancy  put  forward  by  the  defendant  in his written

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

statement cannot be said to have been  covered  expressly  by Section 125(1) and (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. Learned  counsel for the appellants on the other hand submitted that the facts of the  present  case  are  squarely covered  by  a judgment of this Court in the case of Mathevan Pacmanadhan alias   Ponnan   (Dead)   through   L.Rs.      V. Parmeshwaran Thampi & Ors.    [(1995)  Supp.    1.  SCC 479]. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has placed  before us the  relevant  pleadings.  The plaintiffs in para 6 of the plaint have averred as under :            "Though  the  aforesaid  Kelan  had   executed   a            registered  Kanankuzhikanam  document in favour of            Kuzhikandiyil Cheeru and her children  Chathu  and            Mathu  on  27-1-1923  in  respect  of the property            meansuring E.W.40 S.N.30 Koles including  property            described  in  para  2 above which is the property            described in the schedule hereunder.    Kelan  had            not  handed  over  the  lease  deed  to  them  and            possession of the property was not given to Cheeru            and 2  others.    Cheeru  and  2  others  had  not            registered   any   marupat   and  given  to  Kelan            following the   lease   deed.      The   aforesaid            Kuzhikanam  document  was only a sham document and            not acted upon.  The  property  described  in  the            schedule  hereunder  never  taken possession of by            the above mentioned Cheeru, Chatu  and  Mathun  or            their  legal representatives or the defendants and            there was no occasion for that.    The  plaintiffs            are  in  joint  possession  and  enjoyment  of the            property mentioned in the  schedule  hereunder  as            co-owners in  exclusive  possession.  On and after            27.01.1923 the date of the Kuzhikanam document the            property mentioned in the schedule  hereunder  was            in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of Kelan            till  his  death,  thereafter  Krishnan  till  his            death, in the possession enjoyment  of  the  legal            heirs   of   Krishnan  till  the  above  mentioned            partition decree, subsequently in  the  possession            and  enjoyment  of  Lakshmanan  the  father of the            plaintiffs till  the  date  of  execution  of  the            settlement   deed   and   from  the  date  of  the            settlement  deed  the  plaintiffs  as  their   own            property  with  the  knowledge  of all without any            objection continuously for more than 12 years.  If            the above mentioned Cheeru, Chathu  and  Mathu  or            their  heirs or the defendants have any right over            the property mentioned in the schedule  hereunder,            it  is  lost by adverse possession and limitation.            For the aforesaid reasons it is prayed that  there            may  be  declaration  that  the  plaintiffs are in            exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property            as co-owners." Learned senior counsel for the defendant-appellant on the other hand invited our attention to paras 6 and 7 of  the written statement which read as under :           "6.The  suit  is for declaration of right and           title over  the  plaint  schedule  property  to  the           plaintiffs.   These  defendants  claim tenancy under           the   predecessor-in-interest    and    now    under           plaintiffs.   These  defendants  are entitled to get           fixity of tenure.  The plaintiffs have no  right  to           dispute the  tenancy.    Since the question of title           and  tenancy  is  involved,  the  Civil  Court   out           jurisdiction  under Section 125(1) of KLR Act and so           the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 125(3)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

         of KLR Act and refer the  matter  to  the  concerned           Land  Tribunal  for a finding on the tenancy claimed           by these defendants.           7.The allegation that the  lease  deed  dated           27.1.1923 is a share/documents and there is no valid           lease  etc.,  are  all absolutely false and all such           allegations are hereby denied.  The allegation  that           there  is  no "marupat" and due to that the lease is           invalid lease.  The allegation that Krishnan was  in           possession  etc., are all totally false and all such           allegations are hereby denied.  Krishnan or his  son           Ladshmanan  were  never  in possession of the plaint           marginal property.  The  revenue  receipts  produced           along  with  the suit does not pertain to the plaint           schedule property and 1986 assignment in  favour  of           Mathu  is  created by plaintiffs and others in order           to defeat these defendants." In  our  view,  on  these  pleadings  an  issue  would squarely arise whether the original lease dated  27th  January 1923  was  ever  acted upon or not and whether pursuant to the said lease the defendants are in possession and  continued  as such in  possession  as  tenants.    This question is squarely covered by Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.  We may mention that the Full Bench judgment of five learned Judges in the case of Kesava Bhat (supra) was dealing with a case  where the  plaintiff  had averred that the defendant is an agent and only  the  plaintiff’s  possession  was  being  tried  to   be disturbed by such an agent while the defendant’s plea was that he was  a  tenant.   On the peculiar pleadings of that case it was found that an issue of tenancy did not arise. It is obvious that in  such  a  case  without  getting decided the status of tenancy, injection suit could be decided on the question of possession on the date of the suit. Such being not the pleadings and issues arising in the present  case  they,  in our view, are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the  case  of  Mathevan  Padmanabhan (supra).  It has been observed therein that the respondents in that  case  had laid the suit before the Principal subordinate Judge, Trivandrum  for  possession  on  the  ground  that  the appellant  had  surrendered  his tenancy rights and thereafter trespassed into the land thereby he was in illegal possession. It was the case  of  the  appellant-defendant  that  he  never surrendered  the  land  and  he continued to be the tenant and that, therefore, the respondents  were  not  entitled  to  the possession of the land.  This Court took the view that in such a  case  the issue of tenancy would arise under Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Civil Court will  have  no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute of tenancy by itself.         Under  these circumstances, it is not necessary for us to examine whether the question  about  reference  of  tenancy issue  was  rightly  decided by the Full Bench of five learned Judges of the Kerala High Court or not on the  facts  of  that case   or  whether  this  Full  Bench  judgment  is  impliedly over-ruled by the decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of Mathevan Padmanabhan (supra). We leave this question open. In  the  result,  this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside  and  the  order  of  the Munsif  dated 6th Feb. 1997 is restored. We direct the learned Munsif to refer the requisite  issue  pursuant  to  his  order which is being confirmed by us to the concerned Land Tribunal. We  direct the said tribunal, on the receipt of the reference, to decide the same after hearing the  parties  and  permitting them  to  land  relevant  evidence  on  which  they  rely,  as expeditiously as possible and preferably within  a  period  of six months from the date of receipt of the said reference.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

No costs.