IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 1418 of 2002() ---------------------- OS.46/1999 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NO.5, 6: --------------------------------------------------- 1. PALANGADAN KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S/O.DECEASED PULLAYIKODI APPA @ CHANDUKUTTY NAMBIAR, CHUZHALI AMSOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PALANGADAN BALAN NAMBIAR, .DO. .DO. BY ADV. SRI.M.CHATHUKUTTY NAMBIAR SRI.K.B.DAYAL SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) SRI.BIJU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 4 & 7: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREE CHUZHALI BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY TRUSTEE BOARD CHAIRMAN, E.K.KESAVAN NAMBIAR, POST CHUZHALI, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, THALIPARAMBA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHUZHALI VILLAGE, CHUZHALI.P.O. 5. K.ABOOBACKER (DIED) CRP.NO.1418/02 6. M.P.ASHRAF, CHUZHALI AMSOM, NITTAVALLUR DESOM. (P.O.) CHUZHALI RESPONDENT NO.5 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 5.11.2002 ON C.M.P.NO.5606/02 ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA FOR R2,3&4 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010 ALONG WITH CRP NO.85 OF 2003, THE COURT ON 09/04/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.3574/02 IN C.R.P.NO.1418/02 DISMISSED. 9.4.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 O R D E R These two revisions arise from the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Payannur, negativing the challenges raised by the contesting defendants in a suit over the maintainability of the suit as barred under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, for short, the 'Act'. 2. The common 1st respondent in both the revisions, Sree Chuzhali Bhagavathy Devaswom instituted a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction in respect of a property having an extent of 100 acres impeaching the correctness of the order passed by the authorities under the Act, the Taluk Land Board and Land Tribunal that the 4th defendant in the suit has tenancy right over a portion of the property, 13 acres of land. State and two public officers were impleaded as C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 2 defendants 1 to 3. Suit claim was resisted by the defendants and among the contentions raised, maintainability of the suit as barred under sub section (1) of Section 125 of the Act was also canvassed. One among the issues on the pleadings of the parties related to the question whether the suit is barred by the provisions of the Act. That issue was considered preliminarily by the court, and under the impugned order it was held that the suit is not barred by the provisions of the Act. Propriety and correctness of the order is challenged in these two revisions, one by the additional 5th and 6th defendants, two of the legal heirs of the 4th defendant, and the other by the defendants 1 to 3, State and two public officers. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Govt. Pleader. The learned Govt.Pleader assailed the order of the court below contending that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any dispute which required to be decided by the authorities under the Land Reforms Act. C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 3 Statutory bar covered under sub section (1) of Section 125 of the Act is pressed into service by the learned Govt. Pleader to submit that the impugned order passed by the court below is unsustainable under law. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, Devaswom, contended that the Statute provided a forum for adjudicating of the disputes, does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted. The authorities under the Act, at the most, can consider only the claim of tenancy canvassed in respect of the 13 acres of land, which was set up by the 4th defendant, and such authorities have no jurisdiction to determine the title over the entire property covered in the suit is the submission of the counsel. The learned counsel relied on Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 322), State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam ((1985) 4 SCC 10) and Antony v. Thandiyode Plantations (Pvt) Ltd. (1995 (2) KLT 512 (FB)) to contend that in the given facts of the case the finding C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 4 arrived by the court below that the suit is not barred under sub section (1) of Section 125 of the Act and it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes involved in the suit does not warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel with reference to the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge. From the submissions made at the time of hearing, it has come out that the tenancy right of the 4th defendant over 13 acres of land which form part of the property scheduled in the suit, over which declaration of title and recovery of possession is sought for by the plaintiff, has been upheld by the Land Tribunal ordering assignment of such land issuing a purchase certificate. In a ceiling proceeding against the landlord, Devaswom, the claim of the 4th defendant in the light of the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal was also upheld by the Taluk Land Board. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Devaswom that the appellate authority C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 5 had reversed the order for issuing purchase certificate of the Land Tribunal and remitted the case for fresh consideration and it is still pending consideration. So, evidently, in respect of the portion of the plaint property, 13 acres of land, proceedings are pending before the Land Tribunal, an authority under the Act, over the tenancy right claimed by the 4th defendant (late). Since the suit property takes in a larger extent of land, the civil court has jurisdiction and it can proceed with the suit is the line of argument presented by the learned counsel for the Devaswom. I am not impressed by the submissions made. I find the decisions relied by the counsel have no application to the facts of a case wherein specific ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court under the Statute precluding the civil court from entertaining a dispute which require to be adjudicated by the statutory authority is in force. Sub section (1) of Section 125 of the Act reads thus: 125. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts:- (1) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 6 determine any matter which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board [or the Taluk Land Board] or the Government or an officer of the Government. (proviso omitted as not applicable) It is not a case of implied bar but one of specific bar by statutory interdiction which command a civil court not to touch any matter and decide any issue which has to be resolved by the authorities under the Statute. The main relief canvassed in the suit is recovery of possession on the basis of title of Devaswom over the land scheduled in the plaint, which included 13 acres of land, over which the tenancy right of one among the defendants is pending adjudication before the authorities under the Act. It is not a case where the Devaswom has filed a suit excluding the 13 acres of land covered by the proceedings under the Act. The apex court in Sau. Saraswatibai Trimbak Gaikwad v. Damodhar D. Motiwale and others (AIR 2002 SC 1568) C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 7 considering the ambit and scope of the bar of jurisdiction of civil court covered under Section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (1948), which is seen to be almost identical to the provisions covered by sub section (1) of Section 125 of the Act has held that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to decide matters which are required to be dealt with by the Tribunal under the Tenancy Act. The plaintiff in the present case Devaswom admittedly is agitating the tenancy right claimed by late 4th respondent, now by his successors, over a portion of the plaint property before the appropriate authority under the Act, and it cannot raise such question before the civil court. Even if such a question is raised before the civil court, it cannot decide it as such question can be decided only by the authority under the Act. The court below, without applying its mind, evidently has passed an order holding that the suit is not hit by sub section (1) of Section 125 of the Act. The court below is directed to examine the question afresh and also consider the applicability of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC in respect of the C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 8 suit presented having regard to the question whether the entertainability of the suit is barred by any provision under law. The impugned order passed by the court below is set aside. Revisions are allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NOS.1418 OF 2002 & 85 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 9th April, 2010