IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3510 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1624/2009 IN OS.101/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): 1. KAMMANTHATTA PARU, PERINTHATTA AMSOM DESOM, THAVIDISSERY, P.O.PORAKUNNU. 2. K.SURENDRAN, S/O.KAMMANTHATTA PARU, PERINTHATTA AMSOM, THAVIDISSERY, P.O.PORAKUNNU. 3. VALSALA, D/O.KAMMANTHATTA PARU, PERINTHATTA AMSOM, THAVIDISSERY, P.O.PORAKUNNU. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. PANAKKARAN PARU. 2. PANAKKARAN JANARDHANAN, S/O.PARU, AGED 54 YEARS. 3. PANAKKARATHI NARAYANI, AGED 66 YEARS. 4. PANAKKARATHI KALLIYANI, AGED 64 YEARS. 5. KAZHAKAKARATHI LAKSHMI, AGED 62 YEARS, PERINTHATTA AMSOM. 6. PANAKKARAN PADMANABHAN, AGRICULTURE. 7. PANAKKARAN MEENAKSHI, AGED 58 YEARS. W.P.(c) No.3510/2010 2 8. PANAKKARAN RAVEENDRAN, AGRICULTURE, AGED 56 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT PERINTHATTA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PORAKUNNU, TALIPARAMBA TALUK). 9. PANAKKARAN CHANDRAN @ CHANDRAMATHI, AGED 54 YEARS, ERAMAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ERAMAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 10. PANAKKARATHI INDIRA, AGED 39 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, ERAMAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ERAMAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 11. PANAKKARAN DEVU, AGRICULTURE, AGED 66 YEARS, PERINTHATTA AMSOM, P.O.PORAKUNNU, TALILPARAMBA TALUK. 12. PANAKKARAN LAKSHMI, AGRICULTURE, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUMENI AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PRAPOYIL. 13. PANAKKARATHI KARTHIYANI, AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT ERAMAM AMSOM DESOM, D/O.LATE KUNHATHI, P.O.ERAMAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 14. PANAKKARATHI PADMAVATHI, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.LATE KUNHATHI. 15. KAZHAKAKKARAN KANNAN, AGRICULTURE, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.LATE PONAKKARAN KANNAN. 16. KAZHAKAKKARAN CHIRUKANDAN, AGED 72 YEARS S/O.LATE KANNAN. 17. KAZHAKAKKARAN BALAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.PANAKKARAN KANNAN. 18. KAZHAKAKKARAN KUNHIPPARU, AGED 66 YEARS, D/O.PANAKKARAN KANNAN. (RESPONDENTS 14 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT PERINTHATTA AMSOM, P.O.PORAKKUNNU, TALIPARAMBA TALUK). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.3510 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petitioners who are defendants 92 to 94 in O.S.No.101 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur challenge Ext.P1 order passed by the learned Munsiff refusing to refer the question of tenancy raised by the petitioners to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerlaa Land Reforms Act and dismissed, with compensatory cost of Rs.2,000/-, I.A.No.6425 of 2009 filed for the said purpose. It is the said order which is assailed in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners are the descendants of one Paru who is one of the daughters of one Panakkaran Kannan. According to the petitioners the suit property is not Thavazhi property available for partition and the purchase certificate issued in favour of 5th defendant as if she is the cultivating tenant has been set aside by the Land Reforms W.P.(c)No.3510 of 2010 2 Appellate Authority and SM 545/77 was remanded to the Land Tribunal. The petitioners claim to have filed an application before the Land Tribunal to implead him also. Apart from the reasons given by the court below the above narration of facts will indicate that there is absolutely no warrant for referring the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The petitioners if so advised can oppose the claim made by the 5th defendant in SM 545/77 referred to above. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below refusing to refer the question of tenancy to the competent land Tribunal for a finding. As for the further contention of the writ petitioner that the court below ought not have dismissed the interlocutory application with compensatory cost of Rs.2000/- in the light of the decision Aliama v. Idikula 1981KLT 514, that is a matter which the petitioner can agitate before the court below by filing a separate W.P.(c)No.3510 of 2010 3 application. In case an application in that behalf is filed by the petitioners within two weeks from today, it shall be treated as a petition for review and the contention of the petitioner based on 1981 KLT 514 shall be taken into consideration by the court below. Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj