GEORGE Vs. CHAKKUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for decision in this revision is whether the civil court is bound to refer to the Land Tribunal a disputed question of tenancy, raised by one of the parties, where the opposite party resisted the claim for reference to the Land Tribunal, on the ground that the very same question had already been settled by a competent court having jurisdiction in earlier proceedings between the parties, and the plea, being barred by res judicata, did not arise in the subsequent suit.

(2.) The suit is one for recovery of seven items of properties on the strength of title. Defendants 1 and 2 set up a plea that they were tenants in respect of certain items of the suit properties, while the plaintiff contended that they were not tenants under him. It would appear that the 2nd defendant died during the pendency of the suit on 21-6-1972 and that the 4th defendant was impleaded as his sole legal representative. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the disputed question of tenancy raised by the 2nd defendant was settled between the parties, a compromise evidencing the terms of the settlement having been filed. It is also submitted by the counsel that virtually the contest in the suit now is between the plaintiff on the one hand, and the 1st defendant on the other, as, on a petition filed by the plaintiff, it has already been recorded that the decree to be passed in the suit might be made subject to the reservation of the kudikidappu right claimed by defendants 7 to 13, 16, 17, 19 and 21. Issue Nos. 16 and 20 in the suit read as follows.-

(3.) We have already noticed, from the submission made by the counsel for the revision petitioner, that the dispute between the plaintiff on the hand and the first defendant on the other alone survives for decision; and in that sense, we are, in this revision, concerned only with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on Issue No. 20.