MOHAMMED Vs. PATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for partition which has been pending from 1968, the petitioner who was a stranger made an application in March 1977 and obtained an order in the same month adding him as the additional 48th defendant. He filed a written statement claiming to be the tenant of certain of the suit properties and thereafter made an application I. A. 1066 of 1977 praying that under S.125(3) of the Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 the suit might be stayed and that the question of tenancy raised by him might be referred for decision to the appropriate Land Tribunal. On the objection of the plaintiff first respondent the court dismissed the application by the order, which is the subject of this revision, on the ground that S.125(3) had no application as the suit was pending even before it came into force.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that the pendency of the suit from 1968 was irrelevant as it should be deemed to have been instituted against him only in March 1977 when he was brought on record and as the question of tenancy itself arose only thereafter when he filed his written statement. In aid of this contention he relied upon S.21, Limitation Act 1963 and two decisions, Sreedevi Nettiyar v. Devaki Amma, 1977 KLT 356 and Gopala Kurup v. Krishnan Nambiyar, 1977 KLT 409 . Before discussing how far this provision and the two decisions will help the petitioner sustain his contention I think it necessary to notice S.125(1) and (3) of the Land Reforms Act, and examine the Supreme Court decision Eapen Chacko v. Provident Investment Co., 1977 KLT 1 . S.125(1) and (3) read:

(3.) This decision therefore settles that neither sub-s.(1) nor sub-s.(3) of S.125 governs suits or proceedings pending at the commencement of Act 35 of 1969 and that they apply only to "suits or proceedings initiated or originated after the commencement of the Act' in the language of the Supreme Court. The suit in the present case is of 1968 and was pending at the commencement of Act 35 of 1969 and is not therefore struck either by sub-s.(1) or (3) of S.125. This means that the court has jurisdiction to determine all matters in the case including those contemplated by S.125(1) and (3) of the Land Reforms Act.