IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 364 of 2004(E) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/09/2003 IN IA. 934 /2003 IN OS.117/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISION SECRETARY KERALA DIVISION, P.V. VARGHESE, MATTAKKAL PERUMBALATHU VEETTIL, KOIPRAM MURI, KOYIPRAM VILLAGE. (* SUPPLEMENTAL 2nd PETITIONER) *2. STEWARD ASSOCIATION OF INDIA, KERALA DIVISION REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY VARKEY KURIAKOSE RETIRED POSTAL SUPERINTENDENT RESIDING AT PULINATT HOUSE KEEZHILLAM (* - CAUSE TITLE AMENDED BY INCOPORATING THE SUPPLEMENTAL 2ND PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DTD. 23.02.2010 IN I.A.NO.377 OF 2010 IN C.R.P.No.364 OF 2004) BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------- 1. C. JACOB, THULLAM VAYALIL VEETTIL, (* DIED) SOUTH BROTHEREN ASSEMBLY COMPOUND PUTHUSSERI MURI, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE. 2. THOMAS, THULLAM VAYALIL VEETTIL, SOUTH BROTHEREN ASSEMBLY COMPOUND PUTHUSSERRI MURI, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE. 3. OMANA, THULLAM VAYALIL VEETTIL SOUTH BROTHEREN ASSEMBLY COMPOUND PUTHUSSERI MURI, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE. 4. RAJU, THULLAM VAYALIL VEETTIL, SOUTH BROTHEREN ASSEMBLY COMPOUND PUTHUSSERI MURI, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE. *5. MARY, W/o.LATE C JACOB THULLAM VAYALIL VEETTIL SOUTH BROTHEREN ASSEMBLY COMPOUND PUTHUSSERI MURI, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE *6. REJI, S/O. LATE C JACOB THULLAM VAYALIL VEETTIL SOUTH BROTHEREN ASSEMBLY COMPOUND PUTHUSSERI MURI, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE *7. LEELAMMA, D/o. LATE C JACOB THULLAM VAYALIL VEETTIL SOUTH BROTHEREN ASSEMBLY COMPOUND PUTHUSSERI MURI, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE *8.PONNAMMA, D/O. LATE C JACOB THULLAM VAYALIL VEETTIL SOUTH BROTHEREN ASSEMBLY COMPOUND PUTHUSSERI MURI, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE (* - IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 TO R8, AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1st RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD. 11.03.2010 IN I.A.NO.1079 OF 2008 IN C.R.P.No.364 OF 2004) ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR ADDL.R5-8 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R5-8 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.364 of 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of July, 2010 ORDER This revision is at the instance of petitioners/plaintiff in O.S.No.117 of 1998 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvalla. They prayed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondents/defendants. Respondents claimed that they are cultivating tenants under one Edwin Noyal from whom petitioner is said to have acquired title through M/s.Stewards Company of England. Respondents denied the derivation of title of petitioner, asserted that they are cultivating tenants under Edwin Noyal and prayed that question of tenancy be referred to the Land Tribunal. They filed I.A.No.934 of 2003 for the said purpose. Since learned Munsiff had not framed necessary issue regarding tenancy respondents came to this court in C.R.P.No.725 of 2000. There, a contention was raised that since respondents have denied title of petitioners no reference to the Land Tribunal was required. This court referring to the decision in Sivakami Vs. Kumaraswami & Anr. (1998(2) KLJ 603) held that interpretation given by petitioners based on the decision cannot be accepted. Learned Munsiff was directed to frame necessary issue in C.R.P.No.364 of 2004 : 2 : the matter. Accordingly issue No.2 was framed whether claim of respondents to refer the question of tenancy is bonafide. Learned Munsiff conducted an enquiry into that matter with reference to the relevant documents produced by both sides and vide the impugned order came to the conclusion that plea of tenancy set up by respondents is bonafide and referred “the question as to the entitlement of the claim of the petitioners under the Land Reforms Act” to the Land Tribunal. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that learned Munsiff has not framed proper issue in the light of the direction issued by this court in C.R.P.No.725 of 2000. It is also the contention of learned counsel that since respondents are not admitting title of petitioners issue regarding tenancy does not genuinely arise for decision and hence reference to the Land Tribunal is not called for. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents per contra contend that what respondents have denied is only derivation of title claimed by petitioners and that they have no dispute on the title of Edwin Noyal from whom they claimed tenancy in respect of the suit property. That being the contention of respondents, argument of learned counsel for petitioners that title of petitioners is denied and hence question of tenancy does not genuinely arise for a decision cannot be C.R.P.No.364 of 2004 : 3 : accepted. 2. So far as the contention that proper issues are not framed is concerned it is seen that learned Munsiff has framed the issue whether claim of respondents to refer the question of tenancy is bonafide. That issue takes in the claim of respondents regarding plea of tenancy. It is only that the issue could have been framed in a better form whether respondents are cultivating tenants of the suit property and thereafter learned Munsiff could have conducted enquiry as to the bonafides of the plea to decide whether the question of tenancy genuinely arises for a decision. On going through issue No.2 framed by learned Munsiff I am satisfied that it involves claim of tenancy made by respondents and whether that claim is bonafide so that, the question genuinely arose for decision and has to be referred to the Land Tribunal. Learned Munsiff found the question of bonafides in favour of respondents and referred the matter to the Land Tribunal. I find from the report called of from the court below that the question of tenancy was referred to the Land Tribunal vide impugned order dated 15-09-2003 and a finding on the question of tenancy is being awaited. On the factual and legal position stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the order C.R.P.No.364 of 2004 : 4 : under challenge requiring interference. It will be open to the parties to adduce their evidence before the Land Tribunal. Learned Munsiff is directed to ensure that the Land Tribunal answered the reference at the earliest so that, disposal of the case can be expedited. Revision petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-