The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes over tenancy rights should be referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

1. The first appeal arises out of a partition decree passed in O S No 2 of 1977 of the Sub Court, Palghat The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenges the order of the court below appointing receiver for all the partible properties The revision petition is against the order sanctioning suction of certain items of properties between the parties in the final decree proceedings It is unnecessary to traverse all the allegations and pleadings since the counsel appearing on all sides agree that disputes in this court are limited to two sets of properties, namely, items 8 to 16 and 17 to 20 of the plaint schedule Admittedly items 1 to 7 and certain other items belonged to first defendant's father Narayanan Nair He died in 1939, leaving behind his widow Cheethamma and children After the death of Narayanan Nair, his properties devolved on his wife and children as puthravakasom properties His wife Cheethamma died in 1970 In 1969 there was an oral partition between the widow and the children, whereby items 1 to 7 were allotted to the share of tavazhi of first defendant There is no dispute in these items.

2. Items 8 to 16 originally belonged to Kannambra Nair veedu tarwad There was an oral lease of these of items by the tarwad, the dispute being whether oral lease was in favour of the second defendant in his individual capacity or to the tavazhi tarwad of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 14 Similar is the dispute regarding leasehold right over items 17 to 20 belonging to jenmi Padmanabhan Nair The lower court held that leases were for and on behalf of the tavazhi tarwad represented by the second defendant Undoubtedly at the relevant time he was the eldest male member in the tavazhi tarwad.

3. All the parties raised contentions on merits before us regarding these items However we do not want to decide the same since we are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the civil court ought to have made a reference to the Land Tribunal in regard to these disputes under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is a dispute regarding tenancy right of items 8 to 16 and 17 to 20 between second defendant and his tavazhi tarwad The lessee is either the second defendant personally or the tavazhi tarwad Legal identity of the rival lessees is totally different Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would contend that S.125 (3) would apply only when there is a dispute between landlord and tenant and not when the dispute is between rival claimants regarding tenancy, and no reference can be made in the absence of the landlord in the party array The question is whether S.125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act applies in regard to these disputes regarding tenancy rights and if so since the lower court failed to make such a reference, the judgment under appeal in regard to the disputed items can stand.

5. Sub S (1) of S.125 states that 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 Sub-S (3) reads thus:

"If in any suit or other proceeding any question regarding rights of a tenant or of a kudikidappukaran (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran) arises, the civil court shall stay the suit or other proceeding 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."

6. In order that the provisions of the sub-S (3) apply, it is necessary that there must be a suit or other proceeding in a civil court and any question regarding rights of a tenant or kudikidappukaran should arise in that suit or proceeding By way of abundant caution, the expression 'qu