Varghese KalIiath, J.

This Second Appeal comes up before us on a reference by our learned Brother Justice P. Krishnamoorthy. In the reference, His Lordship doubted as a preliminary point as to whether an assignee from the appellant is entitled to maintain an application under Order XLI rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as' C.P.C.'). His Lordship also observed that whether Order XL1II Rule 1A will enlarge the scope of S.105(1) of C.P.C. These questions, His Lordship thought, required an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court. So the Second Appeal was referred for consideration

by a Division Bench.

2. Defendant in a suit for declaration of title and for setting aside an order of Magistrate passed under S.145 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the appellant. Plaintiffs also sought for recovery of the property scheduled in the plaint.

3. Initially the suit was dismissed on 19-2-1977. In the suit, defendant contended that he is a tenant and so the matter was referred to the concerned Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal found that the tenancy claimed by the defendant is valid. Adopting the finding of the Land Tribunal, the trial co