The main legal point established in the judgment is that S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act does not require a petitioner to establish a prima facie case of tenancy before invoking the provision, and the civil court is barred from deciding questions regarding the rights of a tenant or kudikidappukaran.

1. This case has been placed before a Division Bench on account of the difference of opinion among some of the learned judges of this Court regarding the scope and applicability of Sub-section (3) of S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

2. The petitioner is the fifth defendant in a suit, O.S. No. 117 of 1970, which the fifth respondent filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palghat for recovery of possession of a few items of immovable property on the basis of title. Defendants 2 t6 5 pleaded that they were tenants of items 2 to 5 and 13, and that they were not, therefore, liable for ejectment. They produced a few documents in support of their plea. The fifth defendant filed an application in the trial court under S.125 (3) of the Act praying that the suit may be stayed and the question regarding the rights of the tenants may be referred together with the relevant records to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the property is situate for the decision of that question. The trial court held that a case can be referred to the Land Tribunal under the above provision only if the applicant established a prima facie case that he was a tenant; and it dismissed the fifth defendant's application, after finding that the tenants failed to establish such a case. This petition has been filed to revise the said order.

3. The main contention of the petitioner before us is that whenever a question whether a person is a tenant or kudikidappukaran arises in any suit or other proceeding before a civil court, it is bound under S.125 (3) of the Act to stay the suit or proceeding and refer that question for decision to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situate, and that there is no question for the civil court to examine whether the person claiming the tenancy or kudikidappu right has a prima facie case, in order to take action under the above provision. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the fifth respondent that a court is not an automatic machine to start working without knowing what it is doing, and that it should not stay a suit or other proceeding validly instituted before it on the mere allegation of an opposite party that he is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran or send the records to a Land Tribunal for adjudication of that question, without being satisfied that the allegation is prima facie true. This controversy must be resolved on a true construction of the relevant statutory provision. It is proper that the whole of S.125 of the Act is read; and it is as follows :

"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 Boarder 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 hereof 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-s. (3) and return the records together with its decision to the civil court.

(5) The civil court