- (1.) Respondents 1 to 19, representing the Sree Ramakrishna Advaitha Asramam, Kalady, filed the suit giving rise to the appeal for recovery of possession of the suit property with arrears of varam and mesne profits against the appellant, the third defendant, and respondents 20 and 21 (defendants 1 and 2). The suit property formed part of over 128 acres of forest land given to the Asramam on kuthakapattom by the Government. Defendants 1 and 2 took 11/2 acres out of this from the Asramam on varam agreeing to pay a fourth of the yield to the Asramam. They kept the varam in arrears from 1963, and ultimately, sold their varam right under Ex. P6 dated 26th April 1965 to the appellant for Rs. 1,500. In the document of transfer the extent shown was six acres. The appellant also kept the varam in arrears; and, according to the Asramam, the defendants trespassed upon 4 1/2 acres of land belonging to and in the possession of the Asramam.
(2.) The suit was resisted by the appellant. Defendants 1 and 2 also filed a written statement alleging that they were in possession of only 1 1/2 acres and that extent alone they assigned and gave possession to the appellant. They alleged further that the appellant fraudulently mentioned the extent of the property as six acres in the document without their knowledge; and that the price of Rs. 1,500 under Ex. P6 was for 1 1/2 acres at the rate of Rs. 1,033 per acre It was also averred that the Asramam was not entitled to evict either defendants 1 and 2 or the appellant. The appellant contended that he was put in possession of six acres and not 1 1/2 acres as alleged by defendants 1 and 2 and that he did not commit any trespass. He contended further that he was not liable to 6e evicted by the Asramam. The contentions of the defendants were overruled; and the Subordinate Judge passed a decree for eviction with arrears of varam and mesne profits. The appeal is against that.
(3.) The counsel of the appellant has urged that the appeal has to be stayed under Kerala Act 20 of 1970. The counsel of the Asramam has pointed out that the Act can apply only to a case of lease or tenancy to which the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 applied. The counsel has drawn our attention to S.7 of Act 20 of 1970, which provides that nothing in the Act shall apply in respect of any lease or tenancy exempted from the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 by S.3 thereof. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether S.3 exempts or excludes the suit land from the operation of the Land Reforms Act. in other words, stay can be ordered only if the provisions of the Land Reforms Act apply to the case, in which event the appellant is not liable to be evicted too from the 1 1/2 acres. We, therefore, proceed to consider the main question in the case whether the Land Reforms Act applies to the case.;