The court upheld the need for the Land Tribunal to assess claims of tenancy despite previous litigation outcomes.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has challenged Ext.P6 order passed by the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur in O.S.No.446/2013, whereby the Court referred the matter to the Land Tribunal for determining the tenancy rights claimed by the defendants. The petitioner is the legal representative of one Gopalakrishnan. The defendants claimed oral tenancy under Gopalakrishnan. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had earlier filed a suit as O.S.No.255/1993 before the Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery seeking an order of injunction restraining the predecessor of the petitioner from alienating the property which was in the possession of the defendants and also seeking an injunction against forcible eviction. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The predecessor of the petitioner filed A.S.No.222/1995 before the District Court, Thrissur. The District Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, against which the predecessor in interest of the respondents filed S.A.No.612/1999 before this Court. By Ext.P3 judgment, the second appeal was allowed in part. The prayer regarding injunction against alienation was rejected and the prayer regarding forcible eviction was allowed. In the process, the court found that the findings of the District Court regarding the oral tenancy were not really relevant for the purpose of granting an order of injunction. (The District Court had held that the respondents had not proved the oral tenancy and hence they are not entitled to sustain the prayer for injunction).

2. It is thereafter that the suit was filed by the petitioners seeking eviction of the respondents on the strength of the title. Ext.P4 is a written statement filed by the respondents in the suit. In paragraph 6, the contention of oral lease was taken and the respondents contended that they are entitled to fixity of tenure being cultivating tenants of the plaint schedule property from 1960 onwards. It is in the above background that the trial court considered the question whether the matter has to be referred to the Land Tribunal for a decision regarding the tenancy claimed.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that since the plea of oral lease had been put forward in the earlier round of litigation and the respondents had not been able to prove the said claim, and the contention now taken and the documents relied on now are the very same documents which were earlier put in service in the injunction suit and since no further material is available to prove the tenancy, there is no necessity to refer the matter to the Land Tribunal. I do not think that the reference to the Land Tribunal can be found to be bad for the said reason alone. The earlier suit admittedly was a suit for injunction and there was no issue regarding title which had been raised and decided. Moreover, this Court had specifically held that the question whether the respondents had proved the oral tenancy was of no relevance, while considering the question of injunction against a true owner. This Court had found that all that was required was to establish possession. Since the issue of tenancy had not been gone into in the earlier round of litigation and the present case is one on title, necessarily the issue has to be considered and decided. The mere fact that the respondents were not able to prove the oral tenancy in the earlier round of litigation, when they really were not obliged to prove such oral tenancy as held by this Court, cannot be a reason for not permitting the issue to be decided through the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction which has been created for the purpose. The trial court had given sufficient reasons in Ext.P6 order to find that the issue of tenancy arises for consideration and it is in the above background that the order of reference has been made. I do not find any reason to in