IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 520 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2008 IN IA 174/2008 IN OS.26/2007 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ O.M.MATHAI, ONASSERIL HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR KARA, DO VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ANNAKUTTY MATHAI, ONASSERIL HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR KARA, DO VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. RAJU MATHEW OF -DO- -DO- 3. BENNY MATHEW, ONASSERIL HOUSE, KUTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 4. ROSAMMA VELIPLACKEL HOUSE, NEERANTHANAMKARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 5. ELIAMMA @ LEELAMMA, ORUVANAKACHALIL HOUSE, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK. 6. JOSE MATHEW, ONASSERIL HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR KARA, DO VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. (3RD DEFENDANT) 7. O.M.JOHN, ONASSERIL HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR KARA, DO VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.520 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th July, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.26/2007, on the file of Sub Court, Pala. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging dismissal of I.A.No.174 of 2008, an application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'), to refer the claim for tenancy to the Land Tribunal. The tenancy claimed by the defendants in the written statement was allegedly created by their father in their favour in May, 1994. As rightly found by the learned Sub Judge under the tenancy, if any, created in violation of the provisions of Section 74 of the Act, defendants cannot claim any benefit provided under the Act. In such circumstances, though a question of tenancy was raised by the defendants, that question does not arise for consideration. Hence suit is not to be referred to the Land Tribunal. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Moreover, in view of proviso to Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the revision is not maintainable. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.