Judgment :- 1. CRP. Nos. 1510 & 1511/1972: These two revision petitions have been referred to us to settle the scope of S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964. The suits out of which these revisions arise were for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The defendant in the suits pleaded that he was in possession of the land and that he was in possession as a tenant entitled to regard himself as such under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. On these pleas the Court below allowed the applications made for stay of the suits, and directed that the records in the suits will be sent to the Land Tribunal for decision of the question whether the defendants are tenants of the plaint properties entitled to fixity of tenure. It also directed that the other questions in the suits will be considered after the records are received back from the Land Tribunal together with the decision regarding the tenancy pleaded. These orders passed in the two suits are challenged in these revision petitions. 2. S.125 (3) of the Act reads: "If in any suit or other proceeding my question regarding rights of a tenant or of a kudikidappukaran (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran) arises, the Civil Court shall stay the suit or ether proceeding and refer such question to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the land or part thereof is situate together with relevant records for the decision of that question only." The section will be attracted only if any question a rises regarding the rights of a tenant or a kudikidappukaran including of course, the question as to the status of the persons as a tenant or a kudikidappukaran. In suits for injunction, the only question that arises for determination is whether the plaintiff is in possession or not. In considering that question the Court may well have to evaluate the evidence on the side of the defendant also, as to his possession But if, on such evaluation, the Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not is possession, the suit has to be dismissed, and it is quite unnecessary and irrelevant to consider the defendant's possession whether as a tenant or otherwise. Equally, if the plaintiff is in possession, it follows that the defendant was not, and could not be, in possession; and for that reason, the plaintiff would be entitled to the injunction asked for. In either case, the suit is not one in which the question regarding the rights or status of a tenant or a Kudikidappukaran arises, within the meaning of sub-section 3 of S.125 of the Act. This was the view taken by our learned brother Krishnamoorthy Iyer J. in C.R.P. 1430 of 1972 with which we find ourselves in complete agreement. We may point out that the decision has been followed is a number of other decisions in this Court. S.125 (3) being a Section that oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts. we are not prepared to give any broader or wider scope than what the circumstances warrant. Raman Nayar J. as be then was, in Vasudeva Kurup v. Amini Amma (1964 KLT. 468) ruled that a person in possession is entitled to remain in possession even as against the true owner until he is thrown out or evicted by due process of law. That is a principle that assumes importance in suits for injunction. 3. We are therefore of the opinion that the orders of the Courts below against which these two revisions are filed are unsustainable in law, and that no question regarding the rights or status of a tenant or kudikidappukaran is shown to arise in these suits for injunction in which the question was referred for determination to the Land Tribunal. We allow the revision petitions and set aside the orders of the Court below and direct that Court to proceed with the suits in accordance with law. There will no order as to costs. 4. CRP. No. 27 of 1973: The order attacked in this revision is one staying the suit under S.125(3) of the Land Reforms Act and calling for a finding from the Tribunal on issue No. 2 in the suit, O.S. No. 128 of 1972, Munsiff's Court, Perintalmanna. Issue No. 2 is whether the defendant has got kudikidappu rights in the property. The suit was one for recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff-revision-petitioner. Issue No. 2 is whether the defendant has got kudikidappu rights in the property. The suit was one for recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff-revision-petitioner. as argued before us, seems to be that the transaction in question, on the basis of which the suit was laid, was one relating to a building with the land appurtenant thereto, and therefore covered by S.3 (1) (ii) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which provides that nothing in Chapter II of the Act shall apply to leases only of buildings including a house, shop or warehouse, and the site thereof, with the land, if any, appurtenant thereto. There is an explanation to the said provision which states that permission given to a 'kudikidappukaran' to occupy a but shall not be deemed to be a lease of building for the purpose of the clause. The plea of the defendant in the suit was that he is a 'kudikidappukaran'. 5. Counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the question as so whether the transaction in question is exempt from the provisions of Chapter II by reason of S.3(1)(ii) of the Act had first to be decided by the Court, and it is only thereafter that the matter can be referred to the Land Tribunal to consider the question regarding the rights pleaded, of a tenant or a kudikidappukaran as the case may be. The argument is prima facie attractive. Bet the difficulty seems to arise by reason of the explanation which is an integral part of S.3(1)(ii) of the Act. That Explanation states that permission to occupy a but shall not be deemed to be a tease of building. Therefore the question as to whether the transaction in question was a lease of a building with the land appurtenant thereto is inextricably linked up with the plea of the tenant in this case that he is a 'kudikidappukaran.' We do not think that the one can be bisected from the other so as to be capable of being separately dealt with, in the first instance by the Court, without considering and deciding whether there was permission to occupy a hut. The Act constituted the Land Tribunal as the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions regarding the status and the rights of a tenant and a kudikidappukaran. The Act constituted the Land Tribunal as the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions regarding the status and the rights of a tenant and a kudikidappukaran. In this case, we think the Court below rightly referred the question regarding the status of the defendant and the rights pleaded by him as kudikidappukaran for determination by the Tribunal. We see no ground to interfere. We dismiss the revision petition but in the circumstances, without costs.