IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14554 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.52/1994 of SUB COURT, KOYIILANDY .................... PETITIONER: KOKKANCHATH KOMATH KANDIYIL KUNHIKRISHNA KURUP, S/O.SANKARA KURUP, AASARINTE KANDIYIL HOUSE, MANIYOOR AMSOM, CHERENDATHOOR DESOM, VATAKARA. BY ADV. MR. V.V.ASOKAN MR. K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1. THIRUVALA, W/O.KELAPPAN, KIZHUKUNI HOUSE, MANIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA. 2. RAJAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, KIZHUKUNI HOUSE, MANIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, MANIYOOR POST, VATAKARA TALUK. 3. JANU, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, CHERIYATTIL HOUSE, MOORAD, IRINGAL POST. 4. CHIRUTHA, W/O.CHATHU, CHETTIANKANDI HOUSE, MANIYOOR POST. 5. KAMALA, W/O.CHATAPPAN, MEETHALEMUNDALI HOUSE, THURAYOOR, PAYYOLI POST. 6. SOBA, W/O.RAJAN, KURUNTHIYODU HOUSE, AYANIKKADU POST. 7. RAJEEVAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, KIZHUKUNI HOUSE, MANIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 14554 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S. No. 52 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy is the writ petitioner. The said suit is one for a perpetual injunction against the trespass. Even though on the contentions of the defendants, an issue regarding the fixity of tenure under the KLR Act was framed by the court, the said issue was not referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the KLR Act since the suit is one for injunction simplicitor. The order passed in that behalf by the learned Munsiff is perfectly in order in view of the Full Bench decision reported in Kesava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat (1979 KLT 766). It seems that the defendant had moved the Land Tribunal under independent proceedings for the purchase of the land lords' right under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC for staying the suit until the proceedings before the Land Tribunal were over. The Munsiff had W.P.(C) No. 14554/2009 : 2 : initially granted a stay which was, however, vacated as per the impugned order dated 02.09.2008. As rightly observed by the learned Munsiff, since the suit is one for injunction simplicitor, the plaintiff will have to stand or fall on the strength of his possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the filing the suit. The question as to whether any of the defendants is a cultivating tenant is totally irrelevant. Moreover, the Land Tribunal before which the proceedings under Section 72 of the KLR Act are pending is not a court of concurrent jurisdiction so as to attract Section 10 CPC. The court below was, therefore, fully justified in dismissing the application under Section 10 CPC and vacating the stay initially granted. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 14554/2009 : 3 :