Gopalan Nambiyar C. J.:-These two cases were heard together as they raised certain questions in regard to the scope of S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The questions raised which have occasioned the reference will be dealt with in the course of our discussion.

A. S. A. No.1 of 1977

The appeal is by the defendant in O. S. No. 16 of 1972, Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod, a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from trespassing on the plaintiff-respondent's property and from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The plaint proceeded on the basis that the appellant was the plaintiff's agent and had no independent possession. Ext. Al in the suit evidenced the contract claimed to be one of agency. The appellant's defence was that he was a tenant The suit was filed on 19-1-1972, i. e. after the amendment of the Kerala Land Reforms Act I of 1964 by Act 35 of 1969. The appellant applied for purchase of the landlord's rights under S.72-B of the Act on the ground that he was a tenant. 1ssues 1 and 4 in the suit were as follows:

"1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit properties on the date of the plaint? 4. Whether the court has got juri