SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 1330

K.T.THOMAS, D.P.MOHAPATRA
Thomas Antony – Appellant
Versus
Varkey Varkey – Respondent


Judgment

Per D.P. Mohapatra, J.-

While making a reference to the Tribunal mandatory the legislature cannot be said to have intended that even a patently frivolous, malafide and illegal plea of tenancy taken by a party merely to delay the proceeding and to remain in possession of the property is also to be referred to the Tribunal. The statutory provisions, in our considered view, envisage a case where a bonafide and legally sustainable plea of tenancy is taken by the party, that question shall be referred to the Tribunal. (Para 20)

(ii) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-Section 125(6) - Reference to Tribunal to decide question regarding status of a person as a tenant or kudikidappukaran-Building nature of findings of Tribunal-Trial Court (Court making reference) has to accept decision of Tribunal-Trial Court cannot record contrary finding on question of status of a person-Appellate Court is not precluded from going into correctness of findings of Tribunal.

From the statutory scheme of Section 125 it is clear that when a question regarding status of a person as a tenant or as a kudikidappukaran arises in any suit or proceeding before a civil Court that Court shall refer the matt














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top