MADHAVI Vs. NANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in a suit for damages challenge the preliminary finding of the Trial Court on the issue 'whether' the suit is to be referred to the Land Tribunal for its finding in this Civil Revision Petition. The defendants are cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964. They cut 3 mango trees in the property. According to the respondent landlord, they were trees in existence at the commencement of the tenancy. So, the landlord issued a lawyer notice and filed the suit claiming Rs. 1000/- as damages for the trees cut. The defendants in their written statement contended that the trees cut were not trees in existence at the commencement of the tenancy and hence they are not liable to the plaintiff landlord for cutting the trees. The further contention was that only the Land Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute. It was thereupon that the above issue was raised by the Trial Court. By the order impugned the Trial Court decided the issue against the defendants holding that the matter need not be referred to the Land Tribunal for its findings The Trial Court relied on a decision of one of us (Narendran J ) in Kunhi Moidi v. Chathu (1976 KLT 538) in coming to the above conclusion. It was S.125 of Act 1 of 1964 as it stood prior to the amendment by Act 35 of 1969 that came up for consideration in the above case.

(2.) S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964, for short the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment by Act 35 of 1969 reads:

(3.) In coming to the above conclusions we are fortified by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Abdul v. Bhawani (AIR 1966 SC 1718). In the above case, the question that came up for consideration was whether a suit for possession of land based on title by a Khatedar against a person in possession is expressly or by necessary implication barred by the provisions of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932. S.200(1) of the Bhopal Act contains a provision similar to that contained in S.125(1) of the Kerala Act. Under S.71 of the Bhopal Act, to evict a Shikmi (a person who holds the land from a Khatedar) who fails to vacate land on the termination of his lawful possession the Khatedar (a person who holds land direct from Government) has to approach the Tahsildar. In the above case, the respondents before the Supreme Court claiming to be Khatedars of some land filed a suit for eviction on the strength of title against the appellant on the ground that he was in illegal possession of the land. The appellant contested that he was in possession of the land as Khatedar. He also pleaded that his title to the land was already declared by the Tahsildar in an application for ejectment filed by him against the respondents under S.71 of the Bhopal Act and that decision would be a bar to the maintainability of the respondents' suit. It has to be noted that in the appellant's application under S.71 the Tahsildar had already held that the appellant was the Khatedar and the respondents were his Shikmi tenants. The Trial Court held that the suit by the respondents before a civil Court was maintainable. The decision was confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant challenged the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court held: