1. This appeal raises an important question as to the bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, from questioning the orders of the Land Tribunal. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows.

2. This appeal arises from a suit, O.S.No. 59 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Court, Palghat. The suit was filed for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal in O. A. No. 140 of 1970 and for eviction of the defendant from the properties with mesne profits and damages. The defendant raised a plea that he was a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure. On this, the trial court referred the matter to the Land Tribunal for a finding regarding the tenancy put forward. The Land Tribunal sent back the records with the following remarks: A 'On perusing the documents filed in the above original suit, it is seen that defendant in suit No. 59/72 is the actual cultivating tenant under the K.L.R. Act and a K-Form Certificate was already issued in favour of the defendant. There is, therefore, no necessity to re-examine the question of tenancy in this case, by this Land Tribunal'.

When the matter was taken up for hearing after receipt of the above finding, the defendant raised a preliminary objection that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar contained in S.125(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, the Act). The learned Subordinate Judge considered this as a preliminary issue and upheld the objection. In appeal, the learned District Judge set aside the finding of the trial Court and remanded the suit for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Hence this C.M.A.

3. The plaintiff is a Tamil Christian. It is averred that under the custom prevalent in his community he is governed by 'Mitakshara Law'. According to him, his grandfather and grandfather's brother had dedicated the plaint'A' schedule property for conducting the affairs of the Church and to run a 'Thanneerpandal' shown in the plaint 'B' schedule. Under the terms of the deed of dedication (Ext. Al) the eldest male member is to manage the properties and meet the expenses of Church and 'Thanneerpandal'. The plaintiff's father Abraham was the Manager till he died on 13 111971. The plaintiff succeeded him as the Trustee after his father's death. The defendant was working as Abraham's kariasthan. They colluded together and as a result of such collusion the defendant secured an order in O.A. No. 140 of 1970, upholding his claim that he was a tenant of the property and that he was entitled to purchase the Jenm right. Ext. A2 is the copy of the order of the Land Tribunal. According to the plaintiff, defendant is not a tenant and even if there was a transaction of lease, it is not valid on account of the prohibition contained in Ext. Al. It is further contended that Ext. A2 was brought about by collusion and hence is a nullity. It is on these allegations that the suit was fried with a prayer to set aside the O.6f the Land Tribunal and for consequential reliefs.

4. It is admitted that the plaintiff was not a party in O. A. No. 140 of 1970. The parties were the defendant and Abraham alone. Even so, the defendant's case is that S.125(2) of the Act is a complete bar for the maintainability of the suit to set aside the order in question. Additionally, it was urged that even a stranger to a proceeding before the Land Tribunal can file an appeal and revision under the relevant provisions of the Act, which means that a remedy is provided for an aggrieved party to question the order of the Land Tribunal. A suit is not only not a remedy, it is clearly barred by the provisions of the Act.

5. The point that calls for consideration in this appeal is, whether a civil court is powerless in going into the question of the validity of the order of a Land Tribunal even when it is proved that the order was secured by fraud or collusion. Is the ouster of jurisdiction of the civil Court so complete that everyone is at the mercy of the Land Tr