(1.) WHEN the Second Appeal came up for hearing before that learned judge, referred this case to a Division Bench since the question raised by the appellants arose in other cases also and those cases bad been referred to the Division Bench In view of the importance of the question raised, the appeal has been referred by the Division Bench to the Full Bench.
(2.) RELYING upon certain observations in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Paran,1976 KLT. 403 and that in the Full Bench decision in C. M. A. No. 70 of 1975, (1976 KLT. 571) the appellants in this case, contended that the decrees of the courts below have to be vacated on the sole ground that S. 125 (3) of the Land Reforms Act, 1963 has been violated, in that notwithstanding the plea of the defendant in the written statement that he was a tenant, no reference was made to the Land Tribunal. The finding on the issue framed in the case whether the defendant was a tenant entered by the trial court, it was urged, was therefore without jurisdiction. So it was contended that the decree passed by the trial court was incompetent and that the decree was a nullity. Counsel for the appellants prays for a remit of the matter to the trial court after setting aside the decrees of the Courts below with direction to refer the matter to the Land Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)
(3.) IT may be profitable to extract S. 125 of the Act as amended by Act 3: of 1969 before we proceed to discuss the controversy in this case: "125. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts (1) No civil court shall hall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to proceedings pending in any court at the commencement of the Kerala land Reforms (Amendment ). Act, 1969. (2) No order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil court, except as provided in this Act. (3) If in any suit or other proceeding any question regarding rights of a tenant or of a kudikidappukaran (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran) arises, the civil court shall stay the suit or other proceeding and refer such question to the Land tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the land or part thereof is situate together with the relevant records for the decision of that question only. (4) The Land Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under sub-section (3) and return the records together with its decision to the civil court. (5) The civil court shall then proceed to decide the suit or other proceedings accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it. (6) The decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court. (7) No civil court shall have power to grant injunction in any suit or other proceeding referred to in sub-section (3) restraining any person from entering into or occupying or cultivating any land or kudikidappu or to appoint a receiver for any property in respect of which a question referred to in that sub-section has arisen, till such question is decided by the Land Tribunal, and any such injunction granted appointment made before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, or before such question has arisen, shall stand cancelled. (8) In this section, "civil court "shall include a Rent Control Court, as defined in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1963. "