In suits for injunction, the only question that arises for determination is whether the plaintiff is in possession or not, and the Court's jurisdiction should not be ousted by S.125(3) of the Land Reforms Act.

1. CRP. Nos. 1510 & 1511/1972: These two revision petitions have been referred to us to settle the scope of S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964. The suits out of which these revisions arise were for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.

The defendant in the suits pleaded that he was in possession of the land and that he was in possession as a tenant entitled to regard himself as such under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. On these pleas the Court below allowed the applications made for stay of the suits, and directed that the records in the suits will be sent to the Land Tribunal for decision of the question whether the defendants are tenants of the plaint properties entitled to fixity of tenure. It also directed that the other questions in the suits will be considered after the records are received back from the Land Tribunal together with the decision regarding the tenancy pleaded. These orders passed in the two suits are challenged in these revision petitions.

2. S.125 (3) of the Act reads:

"If in any suit or other proceeding my 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 ether 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 relevant records for the decision of that question only."

The section will be attracted only if any question a rises regarding the rights of a tenant or a kudikidappukaran including of course, the question as to the status of the persons as a tenant or a kudikidappukaran. In suits for injunction, the only question that arises for determination is whether the plaintiff is in possession or not. In considering that question the Court may well have to evaluate the evidence on the side of the defendant also, as to his possession But if, on such evaluation, the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not is possession, the suit has to be dismissed, and it is quite unnecessary and irrelevant to consider the defendant's possession whether as a tenant or otherwise. Equally, if the plaintiff is in possession, it follows that the defendant was not, and could not be, in possession; and for that reason, the plaintiff would be entitled to the injunction asked for. In either case, the suit is not one in which the question regarding the rights or status of a tenant or a Kudikidappukaran arises, within the meaning of sub-section 3 of S.125 of the Act. This was the view taken by our learned brother Krishnamoorthy Iyer J. in C.R.P. 1430 of 1972 with which we find ourselves in complete agreement. We may point out that the decision has been followed is a number of other decisions in this Court. S.125 (3) being a Section that oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts. we are not prepared to give any broader or wider scope than what the circumstances warrant. Raman Nayar J. as be then was, in Vasudeva Kurup v. Amini Amma (1964 KLT. 468) ruled that a person in possession is entitled to remain in possession even as against the true owner until he is thrown out or evicted by due process of law. That is a principle that assumes importance in suits for injunction.

3. We are therefore of the opinion that the orders of the Courts below against which these two revisions are filed are unsustainable in law, and that no question regarding the rights or status of a tenant or kudikidappukaran is shown to arise in these suits for injunction in which the question was referred for determination to the Land Tribunal. We allow the revision petitions and set aside the orders of the Court below and direct that Court to proceed with the suits in accordance with law. There will no order as to

costs.

4. CRP. No. 27 of 1973:

The order attacked in this revision is one staying the suit under S.125(3) of the Land Refo