JOHN Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revisions arise out of O. S.259 of 1970, O.S. 13 of 1973 and O. S. No. 14 of 1973; all pending before the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur.

(2.) The common question raised in these cases arose this way. The three suits are for recovery of different buildings with adjoining land in the occupation of different persons. In all the cases the concerned defendants sought protection under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 (briefly the Act). Issues were joined on the basis of that contention and on motion by the concerned defendants in each of these cases the question of tenancy was referred for adjudication to the Munsiff Land Tribunal Quilon. In O.S. 259 of 1970 the question was referred to the Tribunal on the strength of S.125(3) of the Act after hearing both sides. The Tribunal in its turn has entered necessary finding and forwarded the papers to the Munsiff's Court. In the other two cases, reference to the Tribunal was made on the basis of consent of both sides; and I am made to understand that the Tribunal has not yet decided the referred matter. In O.S. No. 259 of 1970. the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 802 of 1974 for ignoring the finding entered by the Land Tribunal as void and for trial of the issue afresh by the learned Munsiff. In O. S. No. 13 of 1973 and 14 of 1973 the common plaintiff filed I. A. No. 1717 of 1974 and I. A. No. 1716 of 1974 respectively to recall the records from the Munsiff Land Tribunal, Quilon, for decision of the question referred, by the Munsiff himself. All the three interlocutory applications were allowed; and these revisions are directed against the respective orders.

(3.) Bereft of details the view taken by the learned Munsiff in ignoring the order of reference passed in each of these cases by his predecessor in-office is that the claim made under S.106 of the Act is not covered by S.125 (3) of the Act, and consequently, the order passed by the court on previous occasions referring the tenancy question for decision by the competent Tribunal is void. According to the learned Munsiff the lease referred to in S.106 was never intended by the legislature to be a tenancy sought to be covered by S.125(3). At the very outset I would say that the real question to be decided in these cases is not whether a tenancy coming under S.106 of the Act is hit by S.125(3), but whether the learned Munsiff acted within the limits of law in treating the prior orders passed by the court in each one of these cases referring the disputed issues to the Land Tribunal as void ab initio. If the orders referring these cases to the Tribunal were passed with jurisdiction then the question whether the orders are correct or incorrect is immaterial, and the orders, even if they are wrong, are to be corrected according to the procedure known ,to law. The short question that falls for decision is whether the earlier orders referring the dispute to the Tribunal are a nullity as held by the learned Munsiff.