VELLAPPAN Vs. PETER THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an important question as to the bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, from questioning the orders of the Land Tribunal. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows.

(2.) This appeal arises from a suit, O. S. No. 59 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Court, Palghat. The suit was filed for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal in O. A. No. 140 of 1970 and for eviction of the defendant from the properties with mesne profits and damages. The defendant raised a plea that he was a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure. On this, the Trial Court referred the matter to the Land Tribunal for a finding regarding the tenancy put forward. The Land Tribunal sent back the records with the following remarks: A "On perusing the documents filed in the above original suit, it is seen that defendant in suit No. 59/72 is the actual cultivating tenant under the K.L.R. Act and a K-Form Certificate was already issued in favour of the defendant. There is, therefore, no necessity to re-examine the question of tenancy in this case, by this Land Tribunal".

(3.) The plaintiff is a Tamil Christian. It is averred that under the custom prevalent in his community he is governed by "Mitakshara Law". According to him, his grandfather and grandfather's brother had dedicated the plaint 'A' schedule property for conducting the affairs of the Church and to run a "Thanneerpandal" shown in the plaint 'B' schedule. Under the terms of the deed of dedication (Ext. Al) the eldest male member is to manage the properties and meet the expenses of Church and "Thanneerpandal". The plaintiff's father Abraham was the Manager till he died on 13 11 1971. The plaintiff succeeded him as the Trustee after his father's death. The defendant was working as Abraham's kariasthan. They colluded together and as a result of such collusion the defendant secured an order in O.A. No. 140 of 1970, upholding his claim that he was a tenant of the property and that he was entitled to purchase the Jenm right. Ext. A2 is the copy of the order of the Land Tribunal. According to the plaintiff, defendant is not a tenant and even if there was a transaction of lease, it is not valid on account of the prohibition contained in Ext. Al. It is further contended that Ext. A2 was brought about by collusion and hence is a nullity. It is on these allegations that the suit was fried with a prayer to set aside the O.6f the Land Tribunal and for consequential reliefs.