The decision of the civil court prevails over the finding of the Land Tribunal in cases involving tenancy under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

Headnote:
leasehold right - recovery of possession - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act I of 1964 - S.125(3), S.72-B - The court remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh consideration of the leasehold right claimed by the third defendant. The court discussed the legal aspects raised under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, including the jurisdiction of civil courts, the authority of Land Tribunals, and the binding nature of their findings. The court emphasized the supremacy of the decision of the civil court in cases involving tenancy and the limitations of the Land Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration of title over a disputed land. The third defendant claimed leasehold right and fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Land Tribunal's finding of leasehold right was not adequately supported by evidence and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh determination of the tenancy question without reference to the Land Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the leasehold right claimed by the third defendant and the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal in deciding the tenancy question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the supremacy of the decision of the civil court in cases involving tenancy and the limitations of the Land Tribunal's jurisdiction. It held that the trial court was bound by the remand order and should determine the tenancy question based on the evidence already on record and any additional evidence allowed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, and remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh determination of the tenancy question without reference to the Land Tribunal.

Judgment :-

1. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession is the appellant and the dispute that now survives for determination relates to the leasehold right over 6 acres and 8 cents claimed by the third defendant. The trial court has upheld the lease. In view of the fact that we are remanding the case to the trial court for a fresh consideration on this aspect, we shall briefly advert to the facts and also consider the legal aspects raised.

2. The suit is for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for other consequential reliefs, The title of the plaintiff is admitted while his possession is disputed. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had leased the disputed land to the third defendant in 1st Chingam 1120 M. E. (1945). he surrendered the leasehold right on 30-4-1954, and thereafter it was leased to two others in 1962, who remained in possession till 1969 and surrendered the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in possession since then and has paid revenue and has been assessed to Agricultural Income-tax. As the plaintiff was prevented from taking the usufructs this suit was filed.

3. The third defendant contended that he was in possession as a lessee, that there was no surrender of his leasehold right as alleged in the plaint and that he was entitled to fixity of tenure and to the protection afforded under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act I of 1964.

4. The trial court referred the matter to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Act and as the Land Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the third defendant, judgment and decree followed in his favour The claims of defendants 1 and 2 who also set up leases are not now before the court. The decree against them has therefore become final.

5. The suit was filed on 29-3-1972. Subsequently on 13-7-1972, the third defendant filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum (O. A. No. 980 of 1972), under S.72-B of Act I of 1964 for assignment of the landlord's rights, contending that he is a cultivating tenant. When the trial court was apprised of this fact, it passed an order on 9-8-1973 staying the suit and directing "The Tahsildar Tribunal Trivandrum will be addressed to prepare the record of rights, in respect of this property and to file the same before the court on or before 31-8-1973". At that stage, the court proceeded on the assumption that the record of rights preparedly the Tribunal would bind the court and nothing further had to be done. However, the court rightly deleted the direction by another order dated 18-8-1973 thus:-"The Tahsildar, Trivandrum need not be addressed to prepare the record of rights in respect of the property and to file the same before me. Instead, the tenancy question raised by the defendants will be referred to the Munsiff, Land Tribunal, Quilon".-indeed a proper order to be made under S.125(3) of the Act. This reference was numbered as O.A. No 313/73 by the Land Tribunal, Quilon.

6. Thus there were two independent, proceedings in which the identical question of tenancy arose for consideration before the two Tribunals under the same Act, one at Trivandrum and another at Quilon. When this was brought to the notice of this court in. revision (CRP. No. 457 of 1974), this court by order dated 10-6-1975 transferred the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Quilon (O.A. No. 313/73) to the Land Tribunal. Trivandrum. Eventually both the proceedings reached the Land Tribunal, Neyyattinkara; when the reference application under S.125(3) was numbered as S.M.1779/76 and the S.72-B application as S.M.1754/76. It is said that evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. The reference answered in favour of the third defendant on 30-11-1976 thus:

"This case was registered on a reference made by the Sub Court, Trivandrum in O.S. 41/1972 for entering a finding under S.125(3) of the KLR. Act.

Notices were issued to the parties. Both parties were heard. On perusal of the records and on hearing it is revealed that the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document