SIVAKAMI Vs. KUMARASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. 138\97 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittoor is the revision petitioner. The revision petition has been filed against the order in I.A. 391/98. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of plaint 'A' schedule property from defendants and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into any portion of the property described as 'B' schedule to the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Doraiswamy Chettiar. He was a person having excess land and as per the orders of the Taluk Land Board he surrendered excess land. The plaint schedule property was assigned by the Government in favour of the plaintiff's husband Doraian. Doraian later settled the properly in favour of the plaintiff on 13-1-97 as per registered document No.122/97 of Chittoor Sub Registry Office. According to plaintiff, the plaintiff's husband allowed the defendants as licensees to be in possession of a small house described in 'A' schedule to the plaint. The licence was terminated and hence the suit is filed for the reliefs mentioned in the plaint.

(2.) The defendants filed written statement. According to written statement, the plaint schedule property belongs to the family of Kuppayyan and they are not liable to be dispossessed from the suit property. The second defendant's father was a tenant. There is no relation whatever be with the plaintiff. The defendants filed present I. A. to refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the application and referred the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal. The draft issues were raised in the case and one of the issues is that the father of the second respondent Kaliappa Gounder is having tenancy right in the property. Another issue raised is whether the plaintiff is having ownership of the property. In the impugned order the court below has stated that a specific issue was framed regarding the tenancy right of Kaliappa Gounder in this case, the tenancy right cannot be decided by a civil court. Since the defendants have taken a specific plea of tenancy right in the property, the Land Tribunal is the only authority to decide the matter as per the law. Hence the petition was allowed. It is challenging the above order that the present C.R.P. is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K. I. Mayankutty Mather submitted that the question of tenancy does not arise in this case. According to him, the plaintiff has taken the contention that plaintiff is the owner of the property by virtue of the settlement deed executed by her husband. The husband got the property by virtue of assignment by the Government under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The defendants contend that the title of the property is with the family of Kuppayyan and from Gounder the second defendant's father obtained tenancy right and that tenancy right has devolved on the defendants. The learned counsel submitted that even if it is admitted that the second defendant is a tenant of Kuppayyan unless Kuppayyan's title is proved, the defendant will not be able to substantiate his case. According to counsel, the question is only with regard to title. Hence the question of tenancy need not be considered.