1. Yet again this Court is called upon to construe Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act though that has been done on earlier occasions.

`

2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the court below was justified in assuming jurisdiction and deciding that the matter need not be referred to Land Tribunal as the question of tenancy does not arise for consideration. The necessary facts are as follows:

3. O.S.No.320/1999 was filed by the members of the Mariveettil Tharavadu of Malabar for recovery of possession on the strength of title. It is not in dispute that as per Ext.A1, the karanavar of the tharavadu leased out about 500 acres of land to one Mr. Colin Aully Mechenzie, a planter of Meppady as per registered deed dated 11.07.1900 marked as Ext.A1. A sum of Rs.6,500/- was paid as royalty to the tharavadu and the lease period was for 99 years. It is also stipulated in the lease deed that if any blackwood trees were cut and removed, a sum of Rs.5/- per tree had to be given as seignorage. In partition of the tharavadu properties, the property fell to the share of the plaintiffs in the suit. They, therefore, instituted the suit for necessary reliefs.

4. The defendants are the successors in interest of Mr. Colin Aully Mechertzie which is a fact not in dispute. Among other contentions, they also raised a contention that they were entitled to fixity of tenure under the Land Reforms Act. In the light of the said contention, they also prayed that the matter may be referred to the Land Tribunal for taking a decision on that issue.

5. Initially, the trial court accepted the contention of the defendants and referred the matter to the Land Tribunal for taking decision on the question of tenancy. That was challenged in C.R.P. No. 1756/2003 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 15.06.2005, disposed of the C.R.P. In paragraph 3 of the said order, it was held as follows:

“According to me, the court below has not properly considered this question. If the lease deed contains an indication that it is a lease of private, forest, then the matter need not be referred to the Land Tribunal”.

6. The matter thus went back to the trial court. The trial court thereafter, on the materials before it especially construing the terms of Ext.A1, came to the conclusion that the question of tenancy does not arise for consideration and refused reference. It is the said order that is assailed in this revision.

7. Sri. P.B. -Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, contended that the act of the trial court amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction which it did not have and the court below was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the matter need not be referred to the Land Tribunal since the issue of tenancy did not arise for consideration. Of course, learned counsel did not dispute that if, prima facie, it is found that the claim is frivolous or lacks bonafides or when untenable contentions are raised regarding tenancy, the court may be justified in declining a reference. But, when an issue regarding tenancy is to be probed into on the basis of evidence to be adduced, the trial court has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether a reference is necessary. In such case reference under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is mandatory.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accepted the proposition that the trial court is competent to decide as to whether the question of tenancy arises for consideration. But that is for a limited purpose and the materials available then namely, the pleadings of the parties and the documents should reflect that the claim is frivolous. If, on the other hand, it is a question that does arise and needs to be probed into, then the trial court is precluded from going into the issue of tenancy.

9. For the above proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Mathevan Padmanabhan alias Ponnan (dead) through Lrs. v. Parmeshwaran T