MADAMBI Vs. KUNHUKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant in respect of an item of property which belongs to respondents 1 and 2 in coownership. The petitioner had filed O.S. No. 16 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, Wadakkancheri, for setting aside a document purported to be a rent deed, and for a declaration that he is the tenant in respect of the property. During the pendency of the suit, as there was a dispute regarding the status of the plaintiff on the question of tenancy, the matter was referred by the Munsiff to the Land Tribunal which happened to be a Land Tribunal manned by a Munsiff. Subsequently a suit, O.S. No. 43 of 1971, under S.77 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1964) was filed by respondents 1 and 2 for shifting the petitioner to an alternate site offered by them. After the coming into force of Act 25 of 1971 the suit, O.S. No. 43 of 1971, was transferred to the very same Tribunal to which the tenancy question in O.S. No. 16 of 1971 was referred. Ultimately an order was passed by the Land Tribunal finding that the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran. O.S. No. 43 of 1971 which was transferred to the Tribunal was renumbered as O.A. No. 468 of 1971 and the reference of tenancy question was numbered as O.A. No. 472 of 1971. The two petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common order, copy of which is marked Ext. P1.

(2.) Sri O. O. Mathew, counsel for the petitioner, challenges the validity of Ext. P1 order on various grounds. It is argued that the Tribunal ought not to have disposed of the two petitions by a combined order, as it has resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner. It is also argued that the Munsiff Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the jurisdiction to consider the question of shifting the kudikidappu under S.77 of Act 1 of 1964 is conferred exclusively on the Special Tahsildars, Land Assignment. In this connection the provisions of S.99 of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, and the various notifications issued by the Government in pursuance of the said section are relevant. S.99, as it originally stood, reads as follows: -

(3.) The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that as the Munsiff's Court alone had jurisdiction to set aside a document, the reference to the Land Tribunal was unwarranted. This stand does not appear to be correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Even in a suit for setting aside a document it would become relevant under S.125(3) of Act 1 of 1964 to refer the matter to the Land Tribunal if a dispute relating to tenancy, including kudikidappu right, is raised in the pleadings. Viewed in this light, it cannot be said that the Munsiff was wrong in referring this question to the Land Tribunal. The order of reference to the Land Tribunal was passed in the presence of the parties, and that was not challenged by them, at any stage earlier to this. Further the Land Tribunal did not exercise the jurisdiction to set aside the document impugned in that suit. All that the Tribunal has done is to declare that the petitioner was found to be a kudikidappukaran. There is also the observation that respondents 1 and 2 are found to be in possession of the property. These are matters within the competence of the Land Tribunal. I am therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner cannot seriously challenge the order of reference made by the Munsiff to the Land Tribunal or the exercise of jurisdiction by the Munsiff Land Tribunal to find out whether the petitioner was or was not a kudikidappukaran by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It may be that the finding of the Munsiff Land Tribunal is that the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran, whereas the relief sought by the petitioner before the Munsiff's Court is a declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the property. That is entirely a matter relating to the facts of the case, not related to matters concerning jurisdiction with which we are primarily concerned with in the first instance.