MATHEVAN PADMANABHAN @ PONNAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus PARMESHWARAN THAMPI AND ORS

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 30-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

Ail 
\ .' 
MATHEVAN PADMANABHAN@ PONNAN 
I 
(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. 
. 
r. 
. 
-
. 
v. 
PARMESHWARAN THAMPI AND ORS; . 
--- ' 
B' 
c 
D 
. NOVEMBER30, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
· ~Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1964: 
Sections 72-B, 125-Tenant.:..:..Who is-Jurisdiction to decid~Whether 
vests with Tribunal or Civil Court_:_High Court remanding the matter to 
Civil Court-Remand order set asid~Matter remanded to Tribunal for 
submitting its report to the Civil Court. 
The respondents filed a suit for possession of certain land on the 
ground that the appellant had surrendered his tenancy rights and 
thereafter trespassed into the land and was in illegal possession. The 
. 
. 
appellant contested the suit. In view of the controversy regarding . 
tenancy, the Civil Court, by operation of Section 125 of the Kerala 
Land Reforms Act, 1_964, referred the matter to the Land Tribunal 
E 
Before the reference was made, appellant filed an application 
under section 72-B of the Act' for permission to purchase the 
respondents' interest in th·e land as occupancy tenant. Tribunal granted 
the permission. Since the reference was made, the finding was returned 
'to the_ Civil Court and it dismissed the suit. Respondents preferred an 
appeal and the Division Bench held that the dispute as to tenancy was 
F ·pending adjudication, the Tribunal could not have granted permission 
>. 
to the appellant to purchase the land. It remanded the case to the Civil 
• , . Court. Hence this appeal 
'· 
. 
On· behalf of the appellant, it was inter alia contended that the 
- Tribunal bad the jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding tenancy 
G and that the High Court could not have conferred that jurisdiction on 
the Civil court. 
· r 
. 
. Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The very dispute whether the appellant is a tenant and 
H ·is entitled to purchase the property by virtue of that capacity, binges 
208 
• 
M. PADMANABHAN v. P. THAMPI 
209 
upon the determination of the question whether he is a tenant. When A 
that dispute is pending adjudication, the. Tribunal was not right in 
directing the appellant to purchase the property. Ultimately, if the High 
Court on appeal, finds that the appellant is not a tenant, his entitlement 
to purchase the property also is lost. Under those circumstances, the 
appropriate course for the Tribunal would have been to keep the 
application filed under section. 72-B of the Kerala Land Reforms act B 
pending till the dispute is resolved by the Court. Therefore, the High 
Court was right in recording a finding in this behalf. [212 D] 
2. A reading of Section 125 of the Act clearly indicates that if in 
any suit or other proceeding, any question regarding right of a tenant 
etc. arises, the Civil Court sho_uld stay the suit or other proceeding and C 
refer such dispute to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the 
area in which the land or part thereof is situated together with the 
relevant records for the decision of that dispute in question. Sub-section 
(1) in that behalf creates a total bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court 
enjoining that the civil court "shall have no jurisdiction" to settle, 
decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is D 
by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to 
be determined by the Land Tribunal. On receipt of the decision of the 
Land Tribunal referred to by the civil court for the purpose of appeal, 
it must be deemed that the decision of the Land Tribunal be, part of the 
finding of the civil court. Thereby, the Civil Court, is enjoined to accept E 
the finding recorded by the Tribunal and dispose of the suit in the light 
of the finding recorded. In case the Tribunal records the finding 
positively in favour of the tenant then the suit is required to be 
dismissed. But the finding recorded by the Tribunal would form part of 
the record of the trial court. As a consequence the appellate court gets 
power to go into that question, the High Court itself can deci~e that F 
question or remit it for fresh decision. Thus the High Court is clearly in 
grave error in divesting the jurisdiction of the land tribunal to 
determine the dispute of. tenancy et<!. as engrafted in sub-section (1) of 
section 125 of the Act and confer jurisdiction on the civil court which is 
inherently lacks and any decision by the civil court by itself is a nullity. 
The interpretation given by the High Court is in the teeth of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.