GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. PADMAVATHY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising for decision in the civil revision petition turns on the interpretation of S.125 of Act I of 1964 amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment )Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969). The said provision reads:

(2.) The short question raised before us is whether suits instituted in Civil Courts prior to the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) will be controlled by the new provision. S.9, C. P. C. postulates the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred and S.4, C.P.C. lays down that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in the Code shall affect the special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law for the time being in force. To satisfy the requirement of S.9, C.P.C. it is not necessary that there should be an express bar. It is enough if the statute purports to exclude the ordinary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, though not expressly, by the use of words as would necessarily lead to the intendment of such exclusion. The saving clauses in S.4 and 9, C.P.C. will preclude the contention that S.125 of the Land Reforms Act, which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in certain cases, is repugnant to the provisions of the Code.

(3.) To decide the question whether suits pending at the commencement of Act 35 of I 1969 will be hit by S.125(3), it will be necessary to examine whether the said provision is retrospective in operation. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that it is not, as it will also be controlled by the proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.125 Counsel for the defendant while disputing this plea submitted that the retrospective character of S.125 (3) is clear by necessary implication from the language of the provision and ambiguity if any is removed by S.125 (7) of the Land Reforms Act.