Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
MOIDHEN KUTTY @ UNNIYAN – Appellant
Versus
SAITHULA MUSLIYAR – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1043 OF 2025 | O.S.NO.126/1991
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.JAYARAM, O.M.RAVI, P.B.AJOY, A.M.THOMAS, NANDHA KUMAR V.H.
For the Respondents: R.SREEHARI, HAMZA A.V., APARNA M.P., CIBY PAUL
Court ruled that findings from the Land Tribunal are binding on the civil court, and a partition suit cannot be stayed pending appeal.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act - Section 125 - Partition suit - Dismissal of application for stay of proceedings pending appeal before Land Tribunal - The petitioner sought to stay the partition suit until the appellate findings were received, citing potential irreparable loss. The court held that the findings of the Land Tribunal are binding on the civil court, and the entire suit cannot be stayed based on pending issues related to tenancy. (Paras 3, 7, 8)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 10 - The court emphasized that the civil court must proceed with the suit despite pending appeals, as findings from the Land Tribunal must be accepted as part of the civil court's decision-making process. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application to stay a partition suit pending findings from the Land Tribunal regarding tenancy issues, arguing that proceeding would cause injustice.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the findings of the Land Tribunal must be accepted, and the partition suit should continue.
Issues: The key issues were whether the petitioners established grounds for staying the suit and if the trial court's order warranted interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the findings from the Land Tribunal are binding and that the civil court is obligated to accept them, thus the suit cannot be stayed.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to dismissal of stay in partition suit. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against stay application. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. court's obligation to accept land tribunal findings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT (Dated this the 27th day of June, 2025)
This Original petition is filed by the petitioner by challenging the impugned order, Exhibit-P1 passed by the Sub court, Ottapalam on I.A.Nos. 5 & 6 of 2024 in O.S.NO.126/1991 by dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Section10 of C.P.C for staying the proceedings of the suit.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, the plaintiff in suit filed for partition on separate possession in O.S.No.126/1996 and during the pendency of the suit, issues was raised as they were some tenant dispute in respect of some of the property. Therefore, the civil court referred the dispute of tenancy to the land Tribunal on 17.02.1999 as per the order, under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , (in referred as KLR Act). Subsequently, the land Tribunal said to be submitted the report to the Civil court and the petitioner said to be some of the defendants along with the plaintiff were filed an appeal before the Land appellate Tribunal and matters pending before the appellate Tribunal. Therefore, until findings given by the appellate Tribunal, the Civil court should not proceed with the matter, hence filed application for staying the present suit, the Trial court dismiss the application, hence the petitioner approached this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is contended that though the Trial court referred the matter are question of tenancy to the land Tribunal. But the learned Tribunal given findings against this petitioner, therefore it is necessary to challenge the same before the appellate authority and appeal was filed. Such being the case, until disposal of the appeal and issuing findings in the present suit/ partition suit shall not be proceeded, if it is proceeded it will cause irreparable loss and injustice would cause to the petitioner, therefore the application is to be allowed, but the Trial court committed error in and dismissing the application. Hence prayed for setting the impugned order. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the Trial court and contended that, when the suit for partition was filed there were only 47 defendants now it is 81 defendants were impleaded as legal heirs and other ways and the suit of the year 1991 almost 34 years lapsed. The findings of the Tribunal shall be accepted by the Civil court and the decision therein shall be appealable to the appellate court as decree and it is also contended that the some of the properties are under the pendency of this court and most of the properties are not pertain to the current dispute. Because some of the properties are include in Land Reforms Act also in the present suit therefore, the entire suit cannot be stayed in respect of partition of other properties. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and peruse the records.
7. The points that arises from my consideration, 1. Whether petitioners made out set aside ground for staying the suit in O.S.No.126/1991 until the findings given by the appellate land Tribunal.
2. Whether the order under challenge call for interference.
8. On perusal of the records, it is not in dispute the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partion separate question of various properties, including some of the properties were in dispute in respect of tenancy dispute. It is an admitted fact, during the pendency of the suit, a issue was framed by the Trial court by staying the suit and referred the question of tenancy of the land Tribunal on 17.02.1999. The reference was made under Section 125 (3) of KLR Act. Admittedly, the Land Tribunal already given findings and submitted to th
