IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 384 of 2009() --------------------- OS.23/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 21, 23: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI DURGA TALKIES LTD., HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SMT.DHAKSHAYANI AMMA, W/O.K.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR, PUTHIYA VALAPPU, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 3. AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.K.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR PUTHIYA VALAPPU, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 4. SMT.K.SAVITHRI AMMA D/O.LATE CHANDU NAMBIAR, PUTHIYA VALAPPU, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 5. SMT.K.GEETHA DEVI, D/O.LATE K.CHANDU NAMBIAR, SARASA VILLA, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. K.VISWANATHA SHENOY, D/O.K.NARAYANA SHENOY, SANATHAN NAGAR, MELANGOT, HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 7. K.ASHA SHENOY, D/O.K.NARAYANA SHENOY SANTHAN NAGAR, MELANGOL, HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 8. K.UMESH KAMATH, S/O.LATE VITTAL KAMATH MELANGOT, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. CRP.384/09 9. SMT.RADHAMANI, W/O.LATE A.C.DIVAKARAN NAIR, A.C.HOUSE, MELANGOLE, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 10. SMT.LATHIKA, D/O.LATE.A.C.DIVAKARAN NAIR A.C.HOUSE, MELANGOTE, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS & PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------- 1. SHASHIKUMAR, S/O.K.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR, PUTHIYA VALAPPU, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 2. KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.LATE K.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR PUTHIYA VALAPPU, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 3. SRINATH, S/O.LATE SANTHI, PUTHIYA VALAPPU, KOTTACHERRY BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 4. KRISHNA RAJ, S/O.LATE SANTHI, PUTHIYA VALAPPU, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 5. K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR S/O.LATE M.CHANDU NAMBIAR, ADVOCATE, 71, LAW CHAMBERS, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001. 6. DR.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.LATE M.CHANDU NABIAR, ENT SURGEON, KALYANI, BILATHIKKULAM, KOZHIKODE, P.O.KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE. 7. SMT.PREMALATHA KAMATH D/O.LATE ACHUTHA SHENOY, KRISHNA KRIPA FORT ROAD, KASARAGOD P.O., PIN-671 121. 8. SMT.SUMATHI V.PRABHU, W/O.B.V.PRABHU, SANTHI PARK NO.6, 16TH BUILDING, 9TH BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE. CRP.384/09 9. SMT.SUSHEELA KAMATH W/O.MOHAN KAMATH, 57 ASHOK NAGAR, HUBLI P.O., HUBLI, KARNATAKA STATE. 10. DR.GAJANAN KAMATH, S/O.LATE VITTAL KAMATH, SURGEON, NEAR HOTEL KANDOTH, MAIN ROAD, PALAKKAD. 11. K.RATHNAKARA KAMATH S/O.VITTAL KAMATH, 15, GITANJALI, 13TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS PANDIT BHIM SINGH JOSHI STREET, HANUMANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE. 12. K.DAYANANDA KAMATH, S/O.VITTAL KAMATH 15, GITANJALI, 13TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS PANDIT BHIMSINGH JOSHI STREET, HANUMANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE. 13. SMT.LAXMI, D/O.LATE A.C.DIVAKARAN NAIR, A.C.HOUSE, MELANGOTE, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 14. MOHANDAS, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA MARAKAPPU KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.OZHINJAVALAPPU (VIA), NILESHWAR. 15. BHASKAR DAS, S/O.LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA MARAKAPPU KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.OZHINJAVALAPPU (VIA), NILESWAR. 16. K.DATHATHREYA KAMATH, S/O.DAMODARA KAMATH, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 17. SMT.RITA, D/O.K.P.SREEDHARAN, KRISHNANIVAS, L.V.TEMPLE ROAD, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD. 18. SMT.ANITHA SIVADAS, D/O.K.P.SREEDHARAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, L.V.TEMPLE ROAD, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD. 19. SUNIL.K.P., S/O.K.P.SREEDHARAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, L.V.TEMPLE ROAD, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD. 20. SUSHIL K.P., D/O.K.P.SREEDHARAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, L.V.TEMPLE ROAD, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD. CRP.384/09 21. SMT.SUSHEELA K.NAIR, D/O.C.KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, LAXMI NIVAS, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 22. K.KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR, S/O.C.KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, LAXMI NIVAS, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 23. BHASKARAN NAMBIAR S/O.LATE C.KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 1/3 CAVENTISH COURT, 13/1 HEYS ROAD, RICHMOND ROAD, MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-25. 24. GOPINATHAN NAMBIAR, JANATHA HOSPITAL, BADAGARA, P.O.BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 25. SMT.K.SAROJINI, D/O.C.KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, LAXMI NIVAS, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 26. K.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S/O.LATE C.KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, LAXMI NIVAS, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 27. SMT.K.LAXMI ANAND, D/O.K.K.VENUGOPAL, LAXMI NIVAS, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 28. KRISHNA VENUGOPAL, S/O.K.K.VENUGOPAL, LAXMI NIVAS, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 29. K.KANNAN, S/O.K.K.VENUGOPAL, LAXMI NIVAS, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD-671 315. 30. DR.U.G.NAYAK, S/O.LATE UDUMA ACHUTHA NAYAK, C/O.V.N.M.JEWELLERS, PALAYAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 31. SUBBAS CHANDRA NAYAK, S/O.LATE K.K.VENUGOPAL, S/O.LATE UDUMA ACHUTHA NAYAK, C/O.V.N.M.JEWELLERS, PALAYAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE. CRP.384/09 32. SMT.SHARADA AMMA, W/O.KODOTH KARUNAKARAN NAIR, KODOTH HOUSE, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.PANAYAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R-32 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R-32 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R-32 SMT.ANJU P.NAIR FOR R-32 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO.33290 OF 2009 , THE COURT ON 18/12/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.384 OF 2009 () & W.P.(C).NO.33290 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 O R D E R A common question of law is canvassed in the revision and also the writ petition both of which arise from different proceedings pending in two subordinate courts. Question posed for consideration is the competency of the civil court to determine a claim raised under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act without reference to the Land Tribunal. Revision is filed by some of the defendants in O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg against the order rendered by the learned Munsiff negativing their plea for a reference to the Land Tribunal for determination of the claim under Section 106 under the Land Reforms Act raised in their written statement. Writ Petition is filed by two of the defendants in O.S.No.120 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi challenging the orders passed C.R.P.NO.384 OF 2009 () & W.P.(C).NO.33290 OF 2009 Page numbers declining the request for reference to Land Tribunal to determine their claim as commercial lessees under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act, which had been raised by the defendants, all of them, in their joint written statement filed in the suit. Both the courts, it is seen, had turned down the request for the reference canvassed relying on the decision rendered by this court in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43) wherein it has been held that the civil court is competent to determine the right claimed under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act in a pending suit and no reference to the Land Tribunal is warranted. In fact, the correctness of that decision rendered by the Division Bench is sought to be assailed in the revision and also writ petition, which at the time of hearing is mooted with a plea that some of the previous decisions rendered by this Court on the question involved had struck a different note, and so much so, reconsideration of the decision in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43) by reference of that question to a larger bench is called for. C.R.P.NO.384 OF 2009 () & W.P.(C).NO.33290 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners Adv.Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan (Senior counsel) relied on Ramadas v. Krishnan Nair (1984 KLT 371), Narayanan v. Kunchi Amma Parukutty Amma (1986 KLT 1340) and Abdulrahiman v. Abdulla Haji (1991 (1) KLT 702) to contend that a question involving a claim under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act has to be referred to the Land Tribunal and it cannot be determined by the civil court. Placing reliance on State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh and others (AIR 2003 SC 2443), it is urged that since the earlier decisions on the question is differed by a bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43), the question involved as to the competency of the civil court to examine a claim raised under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act deserve to be considered by a larger bench as it is not possible to hold that the earlier decisions of this Court were rendered per incuriam. Precedential value has to be attached to the earlier decisions and they have to be treated as binding irrespective of the later decision in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 C.R.P.NO.384 OF 2009 () & W.P.(C).NO.33290 OF 2009 Page numbers (2) KLT 43), striking a different note, according to the counsel. The learned counsel Adv.Sri.T.Krishnanunni (Senior Counsel) appearing for the petitioners in the writ petition endorsed the proposition canvassed as above. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the revision, Adv.Sri.K.Jayesh Mohan Kumar, submitted that the decisions referred to above, which had been rendered earlier by this Court were considered in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43), and after meticulous and careful examination of the jurisdiction of the civil court viz-a-viz that of the Land Tribunal in determining a claim raised under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act in a suit, it has been held that there is no exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court in considering and deciding the claim of as a commercial lessee. That being so, the argument canvassed that the question deserved to be considered by a larger bench on a reference in view of the earlier decisions rendered by this court, it is submitted, is of no merit. 3. Even assuming that there is a conflict of views with C.R.P.NO.384 OF 2009 () & W.P.(C).NO.33290 OF 2009 Page numbers respect to the question involved as to the jurisdiction of the civil court to examine and decide the claim of a commercial lessee under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act when it was canvassed in a pending suit, by benches of equal strength of this Court precedential value has to be attached only to the latter decision by the bench of the co-ordinate jurisdiction. In Deputy Commissioner v. Anandan (1987 (1) KLT 192), it has been held that the latter decision will prevail when conflicting decisions are rendered by benches of coequal strength. Further more, it is seen that in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43), all the previous decisions on the question involved except Abdulrahiman v. Abdulla Haji (1991 (1) KLT 702) had been considered by this Court in arriving at the conclusion that there is no exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court either express or by implication in considering and deciding the question arising out of a claim by the person that he is a lessee entitled to the protection of Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act. In the above case, this Court has held that a claim by a lessee under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act does not postulate C.R.P.NO.384 OF 2009 () & W.P.(C).NO.33290 OF 2009 Page numbers that he is a tenant or kudikidappukaran as covered by the Land Reforms Act, and that only a claim of tenancy within the purview of Section 13 of the Act need be referred to the Land Tribunal in terms of Section 125 (3) of the Act. It is seen that the decision rendered in Abdulrahiman v. Abdulla Haji (1991 (1) KLT 702), which has been canvassed as not having been considered in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43) was based on the judicial pronouncement in Lissy v. Kuttan (1976 KLT 571 (FB)), wherein, it has been held that prima facie satisfaction of the civil court is not necessary for a reference to Section 125 (3) of the Land Reforms Act, and whenever a question of right of tenancy is canvassed from the pleadings or materials on record the suit has to be stayed and reference has to be made. View taken in Lissy v. Kuttan (1976 KLT 571 (FB)) that the question has to be examined on the pleadings and nothing else, needless to point out, has been overruled in Kesava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat (1979 KLT 766), and so much so, the line of argument canvassed that nonconsideration of the decision Abdulrahiman v. Abdulla Haji (1991 (1) KLT C.R.P.NO.384 OF 2009 () & W.P.(C).NO.33290 OF 2009 Page numbers 702) by the Division bench, which rendered the latter decision Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43), lacks merit. The claim of tenant or kudikidappukaran, if raised, in a pending proceeding or suit before the civil suit alone need be referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125 (3) of the Land Reforms Act and a lessee claiming the benefit under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act does not have the status of a tenant under the Act as spelt out in the decision Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43) is not open to doubt, and the challenge thereto by reference to the previous decisions canvassed is devoid of any merit. Judicial discipline demands implicit acceptance of the above decision by this Court. There is no merit in the revision and writ petition, and both of them are dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp