IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 10790 of 2007(H)
1. V.P.SUDHEER, S/O.LAKSHMAN,
... Petitioner
2. V.P.SOORAJ, S/O..LAKSHMAN,
3. V.P.SUJEESH, S/O..LAKSHMAN,
Vs
1. ACHUTHAN, S/O.MATHU,
... Respondent
2. POCKY, D/O.MATHU,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VALSALAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :31/05/2007
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 10790 OF 2007 h
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 31st May, 2007
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed challenging the order
passed by the Land Tribunal as Ext. P3 in a suit
pending before the Munsiff’s Court, Nadapuram. A
question of tenancy arose and the matter was referred
to the Land Tribunal for adjudication on the question
of tenancy. It was numbered as Referred Case No. 9 of
2003 by the Land Tribunal and it had entered into a
finding that defendants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to have
fixity of tenure in relation to the property. Section
125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act deals with the
reference. Under Section 125(4), the Land Tribunal
shall decide the question referred to it under sub-
section (3) and return the records together with its
decision to the civil court. The civil court shall
then proceed to decide the suit or other proceedings
accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal on the
question referred to it. The decision of the Land
WPC No. 10790/2007 -2-
Tribunal on the question referred to it shall, for the
purpose of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding
of the civil court. So, the order passed by the
Tribunal on reference is finding on an issue which
becomes part and parcel of a civil court judgment and
therefore the order under reference cannot be
challenged directly before any authority, but it shall
be only challenged in appeal when an appeal is
preferred against the judgment and decree of the civil
court. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision
reported in Mohammed v. Musthaffa (1978 KLT 168) has
held that “No writ petition in the matter would lie at
this stage in view of the fact that the decision of the
Land Tribunal will form part of the findings of the
Munsiff’s Court in its judgment in the original suit.”
This Court also had held that no revision will lie
against a finding recorded by the Land Tribunal on a
reference made by Civil Court u/s. 125(3) of Land
Reforms Act (Kallianikutty Amma v. Govindan Nair (1981
KLT 560). So these decisions clearly lay down the
position of law.
WPC No. 10790/2007 -3-
Therefore, this writ petition lacks merits and
therefore is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN
JUDGE
jan/