CHACKO KOCHU Vs. ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, he questioned the title of the plaintiff I n the alternative he contended that he was a tenant and that in any case he was a kudikidappukara n. By the order under challenge the learned Munsif f referred the question of kudikidapp u to the Land Tribunal under S. 125 of the Keral a Land Reforms Act.

(2.) COUNSEL for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Munsif f has not taken into account the pleadings in Para. 4 of the written statement where he categorically questioned the title of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the court should have determined the question of title before a reference was made under S. 125. He further submits that in any view of the matter the reference should have been in regard to both tenancy and kudikidapp u.