IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 1264 of 2001(H) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/05/2001 IN IA.616/2001 IN OS.27/1994 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): (PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 ): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. AYIDRU, S/O.PONNATHAZHATH KAMMUNNY. 2. HASSANKUTTY, S/O. 1ST PETITIONER. 3. NABEESA, W/O. 1ST PETITIONER PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT CHERPLASSERY AMSOM, PANNIYAMKURUSSY DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY MR.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, MR.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 4 & 5): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANAKY AMMA 2. CHINNAMALU AMMA 3. GOVINDA MENON 4. UNNIKRISHNA MENON 5. SREEDEVI AMMA Kss ..2/- ...2...... CRP.NO.1264/2001 6. PADMAVATHY AMMA 7. LEELAVATHY AMMA RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 ARE THE CHILDREN OF VALIYAVEETTIL LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA AND THEY ARE RESIDING AT CHERPLASSERY AMSOM AND VELLOTTUKURUSSY DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK. 8. JANAKY AMMA, D/O. MENAKATHKUNHIKUTTY AMMA. *9. MOHANAN, S/O. KADUNGANATTIL DHAKSHAYANI AMMA (DELETED) * THE 9TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AT THE RISK OF PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DTD. 1/08/2006. 10. MAMMUTTY, S/O. KALATHRATHOTTATHIL ABDULLA RESPONDENTS 8 TO10 ARE RESIDING AT PULAPPATTA AMSOM AND UMMANEZHI DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK. R1 TO R3&R5 TO R7 BY MR.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SR. ADVOCATE, MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH. R10 BY ADV.SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, MR.R.RAJESH KORMATH, MR.ANISH S.AMBADY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.2918/2001 IN CRP.NO.1264/2001 DISMISSED 20/11/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.1264 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th November, 2009 ORDER Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.27 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam are the revision petitioners. Challenge raised in the revision is against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining the request of the petitioners to refer the tenancy claim raised by the petitioners in their written statement for determination by the Land Tribunal. Respondents 1 to 8 are the plaintiffs, and 9 and 10, defendants 4 and 5. 9th respondent is reported to be no more. Suit is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In respect of the plaint properties, plaintiffs as well as defendants 1 to 3 raised rival claims as to having secured purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal recognising their tenancy rights over that property. In the written statement resisting the suit claim, revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 sought for reference on the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, declined the request vide the impugned order holding that the question of tenancy as canvassed does not arise for consideration, relying on the decision of the apex court in Thomas Antony v. CRP No.1264/01 - 2 - Varkey (2000(1) KLT 12(SC). Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. From the submissions made and facts and circumstances presented with reference to the impugned order, I find where both parties claim of having obtained purchase certificate in respect of the very same property from the Land Tribunal, there is nothing more to be determined by the Tribunal with respect to the tenancy right over the suit property. A question arising for consideration with regard to any of the right covered by the Land Reforms Act alone could be determined by the Tribunal or authorities under that Act, and that alone need be referred under the mandate covered by Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act. Tenancy question having been determined by the Land Tribunal, whether it be in favour of the plaintiffs or the defendants, the reconsideration of that question by the Tribunal by way of a reference from the civil court is not called for. It is for the civil court to determine, in the given facts of the case, which of the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal is valid and binding. So much so, I do not find any reason for interfering with the order passed by the learned Sub Judge. Revision is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE CRP No.1264/01 - 3 -