IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26349 of 2008(J)
1. VALIYAPARAMBATH SUDHEER, S/O. LAKSHMANAN
... Petitioner
2. VALIYAPARAMBATH SOORAJ,
3. VALIYAPARAMBATH SUJEESH,
Vs
1. POOVULLAPARAMBATH ACHUTHAN, S/O.MATHU,
... Respondent
2. POOVULLAPARAMBATH POCKY, D/O.MATHU,
3. POOVULLAPARAMBATH KUMARAN,
4. KUZHIKANDI KUNHIKANNAN, S/O. CHATHU,
5. KAMBIYITTAPARAMBATH SAROJINI,
6. SAJITH, S/O. NANU, P.O.CHUZHALI,
7. SAJINA, D/O. NANU, P.O.CHUZHALI,
8. SAJEESH, S/O. NANU, P.O.CHUZHALI,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :28/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26349 of 2008 - J
---------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.120 of 1996. Suit is
one for declaration of title and injunction and the respondents are
the defendants. Resisting the suit claim some of the respondents
claimed tenancy right over the suit property and an issue being
raised on the claim of tenancy right it was referred to Land Tribunal
under Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal
entered a finding in favour of the defendants holding that they are
tenants of the plaint property. Two of the defendants had passed
away by the time the proceedings were pending before the Land
Tribunal and the finding was made without bringing their legal
representatives in the proceedings. That was canvassed as a
ground by the plaintiffs to challenge the finding as a nullity. Earlier,
petitioner/plaintiff had filed a revision before this Court to impeach
the correctness of the order of the Tribunal on the above ground,
and, admittedly, that revision was dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the
plaintiff moved an application for amending the plaint to incorporate
an additional relief that the finding entered by the Land Tribunal is a
W.P.(C).No.26349 of 2008 – J
2
nullity. That amendment being allowed, an issue thereof was raised
by the court. That issue was heard preliminarily and the order
passed by the learned Munsiff on that issue, a copy of which is
produced as Ext.P3 is challenged in the writ petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
2. I heard the counsel on both sides.
3. Admittedly, after the reference was answered by the
land Tribunal, the legal heirs of the deceased defendants who had
passed away have been brought in as additional defendants in the
suit. Needless to point out the Tribunal had no power to implead
any additional parties even on the death of a party while the
proceedings continued before that authority. The question that
arises for consideration is whether the death of one or other
defendant during the pendency of the proceedings in the Land
Tribunal would render the finding entered by the authority a nullity.
In the given facts of the case, the amendment allowed to the plaint
and raising of additional issue was quite unwarranted because the
issue raised and forwarded to the Land Tribunal had been
answered. Whatever be the finding made by the Land Tribunal that
W.P.(C).No.26349 of 2008 – J
3
is bound to be accepted by the trial court and it cannot examine the
propriety or correctness of that finding, which is the mandate of
Section 125(6) of the Land reforms Act. Such being the position of
law, it was patently erroneous on the part of the court below in
having allowed the amendment challenging the finding of the Land
Tribunal as a nullity as canvassed by the plaintiff. Now Ext.P3 order
has been passed negativing the challenge raised by the plaintiffs
that the finding entered by the Land Tribunal is a nullity I am not
directing for striking out the additional issue raised or additional
pleading brought in by the plaintiffs to the plaint by way of
amendment. However, it is made clear that amendment so made in
the plaint and the additional issue which is answered in Ext.P3, both
of them, have to be ignored as of no significance. Any challenge
over the finding entered by the Land Tribunal cannot be challenged
by the plaintiffs before the trial court, but only in an appeal against
the decision of that court before the appropriate forum.
The writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-