The main legal point established in the judgment is that any question regarding the rights of a tenant or kudikidappukaran, as well as disputes over exemptions under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, must be referred to the Land Tribunal for decision, as mandated by S.125(3) of the Act. The court clarified that the civil court's role is limited to examining the pleadings to determine if such questions arise, without considering the merits of the claims. The court emphasized that the decision of the Land Tribunal on such questions is final and must be accepted by the civil court.

Headnote:
S.125 - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - The court considered the scope and ambit of S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court to settle, decide, or deal with any question or matter required to be settled by the Land Tribunal. The court interpreted S.125(3) as applicable independently of S.125(1) and held that any question regarding the rights of a tenant or kudikidappukaran must be referred to the Land Tribunal. The court also clarified that the court's role is limited to examining the pleadings to determine if such questions arise, without considering the merits of the claims. The judgment emphasized that the decision of the Land Tribunal on such questions is final and must be accepted by the civil court. The court also discussed the applicability of exemptions under S.3(1) of the Act and held that disputes regarding exemptions must also be referred to the Land Tribunal for decision. The judgment further addressed various scenarios where the question of tenancy arises, including cases of recovery of possession, disputes over exemptions, and injunctions based on possession. The court overruled previous decisions that held the question of tenancy as immaterial in cases based purely on possession, emphasizing that a finding on tenancy is crucial in cases of disputed possession. The judgment also clarified that the court must refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal even if the plaintiff's case is based purely on possession. The court dismissed appeals and revision petitions that challenged orders referring questions of tenancy to the Land Tribunal, emphasizing that such references are mandatory under S.125(3) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The court considered multiple cases involving disputes related to the rights of tenants and kudikidappukarans under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The cases involved issues such as redemption of mortgage, recovery of possession, disputes over exemptions under S.3(1) of the Act, and applications for the appointment of a receiver for properties.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that any question regarding the rights of a tenant or kudikidappukaran, including disputes over exemptions under S.3(1) of the Act, must be referred to the Land Tribunal for decision, as mandated by S.125(3) of the Act. The court clarified that the civil court's role is limited to examining the pleadings to determine if such questions arise, without considering the merits of the claims. The court emphasized that the decision of the Land Tribunal on such questions is final and must be accepted by the civil court. The court also overruled previous decisions that held the question of tenancy as immaterial in cases based purely on possession, emphasizing that a finding on tenancy is crucial in cases of disputed possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any question regarding the rights of a tenant or kudikidappukaran, including disputes over exemptions under S.3(1) of the Act, must be referred to the Land Tribunal for decision, as mandated by S.125(3) of the Act. The court clarified that the civil court's role is limited to examining the pleadings to determine if such questions arise, without considering the merits of the claims. The court emphasized that the decision of the Land Tribunal on such questions is final and must be accepted by the civil court. The court also overruled previous decisions that held the question of tenancy as immaterial in cases based purely on possession, emphasizing that a finding on tenancy is crucial in cases of disputed possession.
Final Decision: The court dismissed appeals and revision petitions that challenged orders referring questions of tenancy to the Land Tribunal, emphasizing that such references are mandatory under S.125(3) of the Act.

Judgment :-

1. In all these cases, the scope and ambit of S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short, the Act, arises for consideration in one form or the other. This is a new section that has been introduced into the Act by Act 35 of 1969. S.125 as it stood before the amendment merely stated that "125. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.

No order of the Land Tribunal or the Land Board under this Act shall be called in question in any court except as provided in this Act."

By S.102 of Act 35 of 1969, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, which introduced several amendments and elaborate changes in the Act the present S.125 has been introduced. That section is in these terms:

"125. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. - (1) 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 or the Government or an officer of the Government:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to proceedings pending in any court at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969.

(2) No order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil court, except as provided in this Act.

(3) 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.

(4) The Land Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under sub-section (3) and return the records together with its decision to the civil court.

(5)The civil court shall then proceed to decide the suit or other proceedings accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it.

(6) The decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court.

(7) No civil court shall have power to grant injunction in any suit or other proceeding referred to in sub-section (3) restraining any person from entering into or occupying or cultivating any land or kudikidappu or to appoint a receiver for any property in respect of which a question referred to in that sub-section has arisen, till such question is decided by the Land Tribunal, and any such injunction granted or appointment made before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, or before such question has arisen, shall stand cancelled."

By sub-section (1) the jurisdiction of the civil court to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is by or under the 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 or the Government or an officer of the Government has been ousted. The only saving provision is that nothing contained in the sub-section would apply to proceedings pending in any court at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. There was the further bar introduced by sub-section (2) which is a reproduction of the old S.125 which we have already read. Thereafter came the most crucial provision for the purpose of these cases in sub-section (3) which is rather sweeping in its ambit in that it comprehends 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. If any such question arose, the civil courts have been enjoined to stay the suit or other pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1976 Supreme(Ker) 110

Cases Referred (2)