( 1 ) THIS revision petition is concerned with the validity of an order made- on the application under Or. 14, R. 5 CPC, whereby the trial Court deleted issue No. 5 in the suit for possession of certain agricultural lands, ( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way: The plaintiff is a Banking Corporation. It purchased the suit lands in Court auction. The lands are admittedly in possession of the defendants. The plaintiff sued for possession on the allegation that the defendants are required to deliver possession. Defendant 1 is the father of defendants 2 to 4. Defendant 1 in his written statement contended that his sons, pursuant to a family partition, have been. living separately from him, and are in exclusive possession of the suit lands as tenants. He also contended that the suit for possession cannot lie against the tenants. . The said written statement was filed on 14-11-1973. On that day, Counsel for defendant 1 submitted before the Court that the remaining defendants have also adopted the written statement of defendant 1. The court recorded that submission and adjourned the suit for framing issues. Issue No. 5 was one of the issues framed without any objection from the plaintiff. The said issue reads : "whether defendants 2 to 4 are the tenants of the suit lands ? " the plaintiff before he began his case, filed an application under Or. 14, r. 5 CPC to delete the above issue. Evidently, he realised that the said issue has to be referred to the Tribunal for decision as required under S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff contended in his application that that issue did not arise out of the pleadings of the parties and therefore ought not to have been framed. The trial Court acceded to that request and deleted the issue by the order which is challenged by defendante 2 to 4 in this revision petition. ( 3 ) THE first contention urged for the petitioners was that there was no written statement from defendants 2 to 4 and the issue relating to the tenancy ought not to have been framed. The second contention urged related to the nature of the pleadings in the suit. ( 3 ) THE first contention urged for the petitioners was that there was no written statement from defendants 2 to 4 and the issue relating to the tenancy ought not to have been framed. The second contention urged related to the nature of the pleadings in the suit. The learned Counsel said that on the plea of tenancy, even the pleading of defendant 1 was vague and that vague plea should not form the basis of Issue No. 5. ( 4 ) IT seems to me that there is little substance in the first contention. Having regard to the facts above referred to, it may not be proper to contend that there was no written statement from defendants 2 to 4. They have adopted the written statement of defendant 1 instead of filing a separate written statement. That is clearly revealed from the record of the proceedings. The statement from the Counsel of defendant 1 "that other defendants adopt the written statement of defendant 1 " has been recorded by the learned Judge in the ordr sheet pertaining to the suit. It has no,t been contended that that statement was untrue or incorrectly recorded. I therefore reject the first contention. ( 5 ) THE second contention urged also is too hard to accept, although i agree that the Court should not frame an issue relating to tenancy on insufficient or vague allegations. In this context, I may aptly quote a passage from the recent judgment of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High court in Pandu Dhondi Yerudkar v. Ananda Krishna Potil AIR. 1975 Bora. 52. " As frequently this question arises, a little caution is required to be exercised before the Court actually frames' such an issue. Under or. 14 CPC an issue can only arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. When a vague plea is made by the defendant contending that he is a tenant of the land, the Court should hesitate to frame such an issue on such a vague plea, unless the defendant is able' to give particulars showing the time when the tenancy was created, the person by whom it was created and the terms on which it was created. If in spite of such particulars being asked for, the defendant is unable to furnish the same, the Court should not raise an issue on a vague plea that he, the defendant, is a tenant of any particular piece of land. " ( 6 ) IT seems to me, that it is an extremely sound approach which the trial courts should make in all such cases. The issue relating to tenancy in view of the provisions of S. 133 (2) (a) of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, has to be referred for decision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal- has limited jurisdiction. It has no power to amend pleadings in the suit. Even assuming that the parties could go to trial with knowledge that a question of tenancy is in issue, it would be difficult for them to adduce evidence relating thereto, unless the nature and terms of the tenancy are substantially set out in the pleadings. It would be in the interest of the parties and also to avoid untold hardship to the Tribunal, the Court should avoid framing an issue on vague allegations or bald statement but I cannot help the plaintiff in this case. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff did not object against the framing of that issue. It did not call for particulars of the tenancy pleaded by the defendants before that issue was framed. After framing the issue, the suit was adjourned from time to time. The written statement of defendant 1, coupled with the allegations that defendants 2 to 4 are registered as tenants in the R and R extracts, would in my opinion justify the framing of Issue No. 5. The Court, therefore, was hi error in deleting it. ( 7 ) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .