SEETHALAKSHMI Vs. CHEMBAKAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dismissing I.A. No. 1693 of 1978 in O.S. No. 114 of 1974 of the Sub Court, Palghat, filed under S.10 and S.151 Civil Procedure Code to stay all proceedings in O.S. No. 114 of 1974, Sub Court, Palghat, till the disposal of A. A. T. 2182 of 1977 pending before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Trichur. The petitioners are supplemental defendants 2, 4 to 6 and 9 in the suit. They are the legal representatives of deceased first defendant. The suit was for recovery of possession of the properties on title. The first defendant raised a question of tenancy in the suit. The question was referred to the Land Tribunal. The finding was against the tenancy raised. The first defendant had earlier applied under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of the right, title and interest of the landlord as per O.A. No. 4370 of 1972 before the Land Tribunal, Kollengode. That application was dismissed. The finding was that the lease set up was not true. A. A. No. 2182 of 1977 was filed against that order. It is at this stage that the application under S.10 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed. According to the petitioners, the substantial question involved in the original suit and in the appeal before the Appellate Authority is the same. The prayer in the application was to stay the suit filed later and await the order of the appellate authority in the appeal against the earlier order. The said application was dismissed. Hence this C.R.P.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order to be passed by the Appellate Authority would operate as res judicata on the Trial Court and hence it was unnecessary for it to proceed with the suit. He further submitted that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and mutually conflicting decisions, it was better to await the order of the Appellate Authority. According to him, the Trial Court has to respect the finding of the Appellate Authority and has to dispose of the suit in terms of the order to be passed by it.

(3.) Reliance is placed for this contention on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Govindan Gopalan v. Raman Gopalan ( 1978 KLT 315 (FB)). There, the Full Bench held that the principle of res judicata was of universal application and the said principle operated on orders of Land Tribunal also. Once it is proved that the question, which is raised before the Land Tribunal, or which comes before it on reference, has been decided earlier, it is obligatory on the part of the Land Tribunal, before whom the question of tenancy is again raised, to follow the earlier decision. It is also stated that where a question of tenancy has already been decided by a Land Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, there need not be a further reference of the same question to a Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Act.