NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY Vs. K C ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S. No. 10 of 1958, Sub Court, Mavelikara was a suit for recovery of over 130 acres of land, instituted by the Ist Respondent in this appeal against the appellant herein (who was the Ist Defendant in the suit) and others. The property belongs to the Government; and the Ist Respondent himself a trespasser on Government property, had been evicted from nearly 160 acres, which, thereafter, were demised on kuthakappattom to the appellant. The 130 and odd acres which are the subject matter of the suit are said to be adjacent to the 160 and odd acres from which the Ist Respondent had been evicted. The suit was decreed on appeal to the High Court, against the Ist Defendant also. The decision is reported in 1966 KLT 333 . There was an appeal to the Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal is respect of a portion of the property, and allowed the amendment of the written statement prayed for by the Ist Defendant in regard to the rest, and remanded the suit for trial on the amendment thus allowed. The decision is reported in 1968 KLT 182 . The matter is pending trial.

(2.) While so, the appellant filed, on the trial side, I. A. No. 307 of 1970 to refrain from proceeding with the trial of the suit and claiming the benefits of a 'deemed tenant' under S.7-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act I of 1964); and I. A. No. 1541 of 1970 to direct the Tahsildar to prepare a record of rights. On the execution side, he filed E. A. No. 279 of 1970 for stay of proceedings in execution till the disposal of that E. A., and the two other applications, namely, I. As. 307 and 1541 of 1970. I. A. Nos. 307 and 1541 of 1970 were dismissed by a common order delivered on 27th August 1970. On the same day. E. A. No. 279 of 1970 was also dismissed. A copy of the common order in the other two I. As was appended to the order in I. A. 279 of 1970. This appeal is against the said order.

(3.) Against the order in I.A. Nos. 307 and 1541 of 1970 the appellant filed CRP. No. 11 of 1971 in this Court which was dismissed in admission by one of us, on the ground that there was no jurisdictional error; but it was recorded that the said order of dismissal will not prejudice the disposal of the present appeal, where, it was observed, the same question was involved.