KUNHI MOIDI Vs. CHATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals arise out of suits by landlords for damages against cultivating tenants for timber trees cut by them. A question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether in view of s. 52 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963, for short the Act, the civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages by a landlord against the cultivating tenant for timber trees cut. Another question that arises for consideration is whether, when there is a dispute as to whom the timber tree cut belongs, before the dispute is decided by the Land Tribunal under S. 52 (6)of the Act, will the civil court get jurisdiction in a suit for damages for the timber tree cut.

(2.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 140 of 1967 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Perambra is the appellant in second appeal No. 562 of 1973. THE trial Court held that the tree cut belonged to the plaintiff-landlord and decreed the suit as prayed for against the 1st defendant cultivating tenant. Against the above judgment and decree of the trial court the 1st defendant went in appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Badagara. Learned subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff has not established that the jack tree cut belonged to the intermediary, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the suit.

(3.) SHRI P. K. Appa Nair, learned counsel for the appellant in S. A. No. 562 of 1973 contends that there is no ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts by S. 52 (6 ). According to the learned counsel, land Tribunal is also given power regarding disputes of cutting timber trees. Learned counsel further contends that as long as the tenant is liable for damages the landlord can file a suit for damages. Learned counsel then refers to Raja Ram v. State of U. P. (A. I. R 1968 All. 369) and contends that implied exclusion of Civil Courts' jurisdiction cannot be inferred. Learned counsel then contends that S. 52 of the Act cannot be subject to S. 72 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, if the tenant cuts and removes he will have to pay and under the common law the landlord will be entitled to the damages if the tree cut belongs to the landlord. This right is not taken away by S. 72 of the Act. Learned counsel also points out that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for damages and in that view of the matter also the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be ousted. According to the learned counsel, the Land Tribunal cannot decide as to who is liable for the damages and what is the quantum. Learned counsel also contends that in view of Ext. Al the court below ought to have found that the tree cut belonged to the plaintiff.