(1.) THE respondent filed O. P. No. 47 of 1973 before the Munsiff's Court, kottarakkara for redemp-tion of a mortgage under Section 11 of Kerala Act 11 of 1970. The revision petitioner contended that he was a tenant in respect of the land. He filed LA. 1891 of 1974 under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land reforms Act requesting the Court to refer the question of tenancy to the Land tribunal. The revision petitioner had also filed O. A. 16 of 1974 before the Land tribunal, Chadayamangalam under Section 72-B of the Land Reforms Act for purchase of the landlord's right. The Land Tribunal allowed the petition; but the appellate authority reversed the finding. The order of the appellate authority was upheld by this Court in C. R. P. No. 2471 of 1976. When I. A. 1891 of 1974 came up for hearing, the respondent contended that in view of the order in c. R. P. No. 2471 of 1976, there was no necessity to refer the matter again to the Land Tribunal as the said order was res judicata. The objection was upheld. The above decision is challenged in the revision petition.
(2.) THE Division Bench of this Court which heard the revision petition was for upholding the order of the Munsiff as it was in conformity with the decision in koran v. Kamala Shetty (ILR 1977 (2) Ker 1: 1977 Ker LT 358 (FB) ). A Full bench of this Court held in that case that the general principles of res judicata are applicable to decisions by Land Tribunals. The Division Bench, however, felt that some of the observations in A. S. No. 222 of 1975 supported the case of the revision petitioner (for a short note on the case see 1975 Ker LT (SN) 74 ). Hence the reference to the Full Bench.
(3.) A. S, No. 222 of 1975 arose out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain property on the basis of title. Defendants 1 to 5 claimed that they were in possession under a registered lease deed of 1957. One of the issues raised was the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the case in view of Section 125 (3) of act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 oi 1969. S. 125 reads: