The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of statutory provisions, emphasizing the plain meaning of the words in the statute and considering the intention of the legislature.

1. This revision is by the defendant in the suit and it involves the interpretation of sub-section (3) of S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act,

2. The suit as originally framed was one for injunction. But it was subsequently amended to be one for recovery of possession on the strength of title. After the amendment, in his additional written statement, the defendant raised the contention that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question regarding bis rights as a tenant arising in the suit and pleaded that the question relating to tenancy right had to be referred to the Land Tribunal for decision and the suit stayed pending receipt of the decision of the Land Tribunal.

3. Issue No. II in the suit reads:

"Whether the suit is liable to be stayed and referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125 (3) of Act 1/64?"

4. This revision is directed against the finding of the court below that the suit was not liable to be stayed and that it was not necessary for that court to refer the dispute relating to the tenancy to the Land Tribunal. The conclusion reached by the court below is as extracted below:

"The Section can only to be interpreted to mean that the reference to the Land Tribunal has to be resorted to when there is a bona fide dispute between the parties regarding the status of the person who claims to be in possession of the property. So I am noT able to accede to the contention of the defendant that the Civil Court will be obliged to refer the matter to the Land Tribunal once the defendant sets up a tenancy. That will have to be referred to the Land Tribunal only if the defendant is able to make out a prima facie case that he is a tenant."

in arriving at the above conclusion the court below sought support of the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Choyi V. Kunhiraman and others (1971 KLT. 563). Referring to the scope of S.3 of the Cultivators and Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1970 (Act 20 of 1970), the Division Bench in that case held as follows:

The legislature could not have intended that all suits or proceedings in respect of a land have to be stayed the moment a statement is filed. There is therefore some ambiguity in the wording of S.3 (1) of Act 20 of 1970 and a reference to the preamble or the statement to the objects and reasons can be resorted to for interpreting the said provision. If so interpreted the protection is intended only for persons in occupation of the land which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings. If the Court is satisfied that the conditions laid down in S.3 (1) (a) or S.3 (1) (b) of Act 20 of 1970 are present then only it is necessary for the Court to stay a suit. It is not open to a Court or Tribunal to stay the suiter proceedings the moment a statement is filed by a party thereto even though the suit or proceeding is in respect of any land without any enquiry regarding the possession of the land which is the subject matter of the suit and without satisfying about the conditions in S.3 (1) (a) or (1) (b) of Act 20 of 70. If a plaintiff claims to be in possession of the land and wants to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession, it will not be open to the Court to act under S.3 of the Act. If the plaintiff's possession is not found the suit has only to be dismissed. If it is found that the plaintiff is in possession and that the defendant has no possession the Court has to decree the suit and restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession. There is nothing in S.3 of Act 20 of 1970 preventing the Court from doing so. To such cases S.3 can never apply as no occupation or possession of the defendant is sought to be disturbed. Even in cases where the possession or occupation of the defendant is admitted, the Court will have to be satisfied prima facie that the conditions in S.3(1) (a) or 3(1) (b) are present to stay the suit. If a plaintiff files a