IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26349 of 2008(J) -------------------------- OS.120/1996 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, NADAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. VALIYAPARAMBATH SUDHEER, S/O. LAKSHMANAN, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. VALIYAPARAMBATH SOORAJ, S/O. LAKSHMANAN, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. VALIYAPARAMBATH SUJEESH, S/O. LAKSHMANAN, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH DESOM, VATTAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. POOVULLAPARAMBATH ACHUTHAN, S/O.MATHU, CHEKKAYI, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. POOVULLAPARAMBATH POCKY, D/O.MATHU, CHEKKAYI, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. POOVULLAPARAMBATH KUMARAN, S/O. CHATHU, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.26349/2008 J 4. KUZHIKANDI KUNHIKANNAN, S/O. CHATHU, VALAYAM AMSOM, CHERUMOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. KAMBIYITTAPARAMBATH SAROJINI, S/O. NANU, P.O. CHUZHALI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. SAJITH, S/O. NANU, P.O.CHUZHALI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. SAJINA, D/O. NANU, P.O.CHUZHALI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. SAJEESH, S/O. NANU, P.O.CHUZHALI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY ADVS. MR.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SMT.C.G.PREETHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26349/2008 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 27/2/2007 IN R.C.9/2003 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 31/05/2007 IN WPC.NO.10790 OF 2007. P3: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 19/07/2008 IN ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1 IN O.S.NO.120/1996 MUNSIFF'S COURT, NADAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26349 of 2008 - J --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.120 of 1996. Suit is one for declaration of title and injunction and the respondents are the defendants. Resisting the suit claim some of the respondents claimed tenancy right over the suit property and an issue being raised on the claim of tenancy right it was referred to Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal entered a finding in favour of the defendants holding that they are tenants of the plaint property. Two of the defendants had passed away by the time the proceedings were pending before the Land Tribunal and the finding was made without bringing their legal representatives in the proceedings. That was canvassed as a ground by the plaintiffs to challenge the finding as a nullity. Earlier, petitioner/plaintiff had filed a revision before this Court to impeach the correctness of the order of the Tribunal on the above ground, and, admittedly, that revision was dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff moved an application for amending the plaint to incorporate an additional relief that the finding entered by the Land Tribunal is a W.P.(C).No.26349 of 2008 - J 2 nullity. That amendment being allowed, an issue thereof was raised by the court. That issue was heard preliminarily and the order passed by the learned Munsiff on that issue, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3 is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Admittedly, after the reference was answered by the land Tribunal, the legal heirs of the deceased defendants who had passed away have been brought in as additional defendants in the suit. Needless to point out the Tribunal had no power to implead any additional parties even on the death of a party while the proceedings continued before that authority. The question that arises for consideration is whether the death of one or other defendant during the pendency of the proceedings in the Land Tribunal would render the finding entered by the authority a nullity. In the given facts of the case, the amendment allowed to the plaint and raising of additional issue was quite unwarranted because the issue raised and forwarded to the Land Tribunal had been answered. Whatever be the finding made by the Land Tribunal that W.P.(C).No.26349 of 2008 - J 3 is bound to be accepted by the trial court and it cannot examine the propriety or correctness of that finding, which is the mandate of Section 125(6) of the Land reforms Act. Such being the position of law, it was patently erroneous on the part of the court below in having allowed the amendment challenging the finding of the Land Tribunal as a nullity as canvassed by the plaintiff. Now Ext.P3 order has been passed negativing the challenge raised by the plaintiffs that the finding entered by the Land Tribunal is a nullity I am not directing for striking out the additional issue raised or additional pleading brought in by the plaintiffs to the plaint by way of amendment. However, it is made clear that amendment so made in the plaint and the additional issue which is answered in Ext.P3, both of them, have to be ignored as of no significance. Any challenge over the finding entered by the Land Tribunal cannot be challenged by the plaintiffs before the trial court, but only in an appeal against the decision of that court before the appropriate forum. The writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-