KUMARAN VAIDYAR Vs. K S VENKITESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether a civil court possesses, the power to review, suo motu, its concluded finding on an issue in a suit.

(2.) The defendant Nos.7, 8 and 9 in O.S.218/86 on the file of the Munsiff, Ottappalam, impugn the order dated 16-2-1989 made by the learned Munsiff. By the impugned order, the learned Munsiff, without any application by either party, and suo motu, reviewed his order dated 25-11-1988 by which he had held that the question whether the defendant No.7 is a tenant of 11 acres and 75 cents "did not arise" for consideration, and therefore declined to make reference to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

(3.) The suit is for partition and separate possession of 8/28th share of plaintiffs property. Partition is claimed against the defendants 1 to 6. The 7th defendant urged, in the written statement, that he was a tenant of 11 acres 75 cents out of the suit property. The lease was allegedly created by the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6. The issues were raised in the suit. Issue No.3 which reads as under, was tried as a preliminary issue: