(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 1990 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg. He instituted the suit for a declaration that the Kuzhikanom assignment deed No. 64/80 is a fraudulent and invalid document and for consequential reliefs. Defendant filed a written statement as well as an additional written statement. On the basis of the contentions raised by the defendant issue No. 10 was raised which reads:
(2.) Learned Sub Judge referred the said question for adjudication to the Land Tribunal as per S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1/64) as amended (for short 'the Act'). The said order of the learned Sub Judge is under challenge in this C.R.P.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that with due regard to the nature of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner issue No.10 need not have been referred to the Land Tribunal for adjudication. Learned counsel relied on the decision in Chacko Kochu v. Abraham ( 1977 KLT 868 ) in support of the said contention. According to him, since the Land Tribunal is incompetent to give a relief as the one claimed in the plaint, the Land Tribunal was not competent to enter a finding as regards the question in issue No. 10. Sri N. Viswanatha Iyer, Advocate who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, on the other hand contended that, so long as the relief sought by the plaintiff-petitioner could be granted only on adjudicating the said question also, the Trial Court will have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said question and the Trial Court was right in referring the said question to the Land Tribunal for adjudication.