Through Ext.P5 order, the court below has chosen to refer the question of tenancy in respect of property being claimed by the 9th defendant, to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The said order is under challenge.

2. The 8th defendant as well as the 9th defendant has pleaded tenancy in respect of the properties allotted to them through partition deed No.3470/1982. Originally, they claimed that the said properties covered by the partition deed were the subject matter of an oral lease in favour of their father, late Cholayil Marakkar. After the death of Cholayil Marakkar, the 8th and 9th defendants along with other legal heirs executed partition deed No.3470/1982 in respect of the properties.

3. Subsequently, the 8th defendant obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal in respect of the 1 acre and 56 cents of property allotted to him through the said partition deed. Through the very same partition deed, item No.2 property having an extent of 1.25 acres was allotted to the 9th defendant. The 9th defendant had never approached the Land Tribunal for purchase certificate.

4. Through the present suit, the petitioner has contended that the purchase certificate obtained by the 8th defendant in respect of the 1.56 acres of property, is a result of fraud and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Vide judgment dated 12.11.2010 in W.P.(C) No.28366/2010, this Court had originally found that the said question as far as the tenancy right claimed by the 8th defendant as well as the validity of the purchase certificate obtained by the 8th defendant, has to be decided by the court below in the civil suit. When fraud has been alleged, the said question has to be decided by the civil court, and not by the Land Tribunal. Through the said judgment, this Court had originally directed the court below to treat the case of the 9th defendant separately and to decide the question as to whether the matter relating to the 9th defendant has to be referred to the Land Tribunal or not.

5. The petitioner has approached this Court with R.P.No.610/2011 thereby pointing out the necessity of a review of the said judgment. This Court, through Ext.P3 order, reviewed the said judgment after having a detailed discussion with regard to the matters in controversy. The writ petition was again posted for hearing.

6. Through Ext.P4 judgment, this Court has disposed of the writ petition as follows:-

"The ninth defendant has however not obtained any certificate of purchase in relation to his property. Therefore the Court below has to consider whether the plea is merely 'raised' or 'arises' for consideration. Whether the plea of tenancy is bonafide and is likely to be upheld eventually has to be looked into. The Court below shall decide the necessity to refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal afresh and the impugned order as regards the ninth defendant alone is set aside. The Court below shall pass fresh orders on the question of reference under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from today."

7. Based on the aforesaid findings entered by this Court vide judgment dated 08.07.2014, the court below has decided the said question. The court below has taken the view that the purchase certificate was issued in favour of the 8th defendant only and, therefore, the Land Tribunal has to decide in respect of the tenancy with regard to the property claimed by the 9th defendant, for which the matter has necessarily to be referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

8. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in case the question relating to the tenancy right being claimed by the 9th defendant is referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, there is every possi