" Prfl sent: Tb e h ononrcl>li Ur.Just ice V.Khalid Wednesday the 23rd Janu er, 1980/3rd Magha, 1901 , . SA.No .3( ot 1980E # 553/3- 3za:.l, Tot- ./\.S.737/77 <'f Jlistrict court, Tr,i-iand:tum O.S.?56 -c,,l Hl73 of 'lunsitt court, Neyyattinkara Parvathy Pillai Kamalamma fi llat, Vetta.mangalathu Kunnathuvi lakathu Bungalow, Maranallo••rdesom · and village by Sri .P.Gopala~ri ahnan Nair responlente - r,0spor-dents - defendants ---- --- - . ·--------·------~------------ - ------- 1. Kunjan Nadar Kut tan Nadar, Kalluvilakathu Puthe ve,edu ,Thn la:val· des om, PalIichal village 2. Kunjan Nadar Unni Nedar of do 3. Kunjan Nadar Arjunan Nadar of do . . . 4.Malan Nadar Govindan Nadar, Valiyavilakathu Fdavzhiyarikathu' veedu, Thalayal desom, Pal lichal •. . 5 •. , Ummini Nadnr Ponnian Nad~r, ,\yaniyarathala .. . . Kizhkkari kathu veedu, do des om .· 6 10 U! l!lini Nadar, C/o Suku111aran Nadar, Plavi lakathu Na?athattu veedu, do desom, Kochukrishnnn Nadar Leksbmanan Nad,ir, TbekkekalJ vi lakom' puthen veedu·, do desom 8. Raman .Nadar Janardhanan Nadar, Valiyavilakathu Vndakkathu Veedu, do desnm· 9. Lekshmi Pillai Chel lamma Pillai, Nedungottukona1 Pa ilaravi'la Mela'uthen veedu, Pallichal dsom 10. KrJsbna, ;ptJ lat Sa.sidh-aran ?tair, Pandaravi lakathll Mele puthen veedu,,, do deso! 11 _'5 Nelakantan Kunjukrishnan.Kundarathalakal veedu <l -, , -. : {r 3. · •• ' ·· -12. Thomas Wi Ison, Pandaravila Kizhakkethttu purayyi -· · •Pallihal, de s-o• 7. {t. 13. Kochan Johnson of do 14. John Thomnson,Palottukonam F..davilaknthu Puthen veedu of do Tlis second appeal having come up for sdmis sion on 23-1-80 the court. on the sa! e day de- 1 ivered the :following: JUDGMENT The question of law pressed in this second appea I is that the coui ts below gro·ssly erred in relying upon Fx-B5 order in non-suiting the nlaintiff'. • That is an order pass@d by the concerned authority under sec.29 of the K.L.R,et. It is stated that the si! order was passed without tmpleading the plafntiff. The order is said tobe bad for this re·son and for violation of natural justice. The forward contesting defendant& put t.11nri a case of tenancy based on Ex-B5. This plea of tenancy was referred to the lana tribunal who returned a finding in favour of the respondents. This wns confirmed in appeal. The lea of the counsel is that a decree tor redempti should be passed ignoring Ex-5. There is no plea in the snit to. set asJde Ex-B5 on any gr onjds known to law. .~ccording to me· it will he bighly improper andirregular to pass a decree ignoring E5. The .plaintiff's remedy is to get Ex-5 declared inoperative and not binding on him in Appropriate ~ . pre'ceedlnga. I •·not sattafted that any subatantia · qttf"Sti n n of law ariaei in th! • seeend appeal. 7ismissed tr• copy .. )