LexPOOVOLLAPARAMBIL CHATHU AND ORS. versus V.P. SUDHEER AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
POOVOLLAPARAMBIL CHATHU AND ORS. v. V.P. SUDHEER AND ORS. NOVEMBER 6, 1998 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1964: Sections 125(1) and (3). Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9. Tenancy laws-Questions arising under Kera/a Land Reforms Act- Required to be dealt with by authorities created under the Act-Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits involving such matters Suit filed A B c by respondent-plaintiffs-Prayer for declaration that they were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of property as co-owners-Appellant-Defendants ' claim-Issue based on pleadings-Whether the original lease dated 27th D 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 was squarely covered by Section 125 of the Kera/a Land Reforms Act-Munsif directed to refer the requisite issue to the concerned land Tribunal. Kesava Bhatv. Subraya Bhat, (1979) KLT 766, held inapplicable. Mathevan Padmanabhan alias Ponnan (Dead) through L. Rs. v. Parmeshwaran Thampi and Ors., [1995) Supp. 1 SCC 479, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5500 of 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.97 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 335 of 1997. M.P. Vinod for the Appellants. P.S. Poti and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. 555 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A 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 B to fixity of tenure? c D E Relevant provisions of Section 125 of the Ketala 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 decision of 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 F Bhat v. Subraya Bhat, (1979) KL T 766 wherein the 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 statement cannot be said to have been covered expressly by Section 125( I) G 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 Padmanabhan alias Ponnan (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Parmeshwaran Thampi and Ors., [1995] Supp. I. SCC 479. Learned senior H counsel for the respondents has placed before us the relevant pleadings. The POOVOLLAPARAMBIL CHA THU v. V.P. SUDHEER 557 plaintiffs in para 6 of the plaint have averred as under : A "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 measuring E.W.40 S.N.30 Koles including property described in para 2 above which is the property described in the schedule hereunder, B 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 register
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.