LISSY Vs. KUTTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, the scope and ambit of S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short, the Act, arises for consideration in one form or the other. This is a new section that has been introduced into the Act by Act 35 of 1969. S.125 as it stood before the amendment merely stated that

(2.) Dealing with sub-s.(1) and (3) of S.125 of the Act, this Court said in the judgment in C.R.P. No. 298 of 1973:

(3.) The next aspect to be considered is as to whether the court must be prima facie satisfied that there is a real question regarding the rights of a tenant or of a kudikidappukaran or whether a person is a real tenant or a kudikidappukaran, before the suit or proceeding is stayed and the matter referred to the Land Tribunal. The section of course does not state that only if the court is prima facie satisfied that any question regarding the rights of a tenant or of a kudikidappukaran or whether a person is a real tenant or a kudikidappukaran arises, the question need be referred to the Tribunal. On the other hand, the wording of the section seems to indicate that whenever a question of a right such as that referred to by the sub-section arises, the suit must be stayed and the question referred to the Land Tribunal. If it is assumed that the court should decide, though only prima facie, whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran or not and whether he has any real right as a tenant or as a kudikidappukaran, by holding that prima facie he has no right or that he is not a tenant or a kudikidappukaran, jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal to deal with the matter can be ousted. Similarly if a court comes to the conclusion that prima facie a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran or that he has some right as a tenant or as a kudikidappukaran and referred the question to the Land Tribunal, it is possible that the Land Tribunal may come to a different conclusion. The Act does not contemplate any such conflicting views being expressed by the Court and the Land Tribunal. On the particular question that arises exclusive jurisdiction has been granted on the Land Tribunal and sub-s.(5) of S.125 indicates that the decision of the Land Tribunal has to be accepted by the civil court and sub-s.(6) indicates that such a finding accepted by the court should be deemed to be a finding of the civil court for the purpose of appeal. All such questions will, therefore, have to be exclusively determined by the Land Tribunal. The only matter to be considered in the court is whether any question regarding the rights of a tenant or a kudikidappukaran including the question as to whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran arises in a suit or proceeding. This, the court will have to examine and for this purpose what will have to be examined are the pleadings, and we consider, nothing else. Whether the plea is frivolous or sustainable or prima facie true or not are all foreign to the scope of the enquiry before court. We are in complete agreement with the decision in Sankaran v. Rajammal (1974 KLT 488) where all the decisions on the subject on analogous provisions of previous enactments have been reviewed. The view has been taken in the decision that S.125(3) has barred any consideration by the court of the question even for the purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case has been established.