Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, he questioned the title of the plaintiff In the alternative he contended that he was a tenant and that in any case he was a kudikidappukaran. By the order under challenge the learned Munsiff referred the question of kudikidappu to the Land Tribunal under S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the learned Munsiff has not taken into account the pleadings in Para.4 of the written statement where he categorically questioned the title of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the court should have determined the question of title before a reference was made under S.125. He further submits that in any view of the matter the reference should have been in regard to both tenancy and kudikidappu. 3. When the defendant questions the title of the plaintiff, and in the alternative raises contentions regarding tenancy or kudikidappu, it is necessary that, before a reference under S 125 is made, the question of title is first determined. The question of tenancy or kudikidappu can arise only if it is found that the plaintiff is a landlord. If it is on the other hand found that the plaintiff has no title to the land, the question of tenancy or kudikidappu in relation to the plaintiff does not arise at all. The learned Munsiff, it would appear from the order, lost sight of the fact that the question of the plaintiff's title was specifically raised in the written statement. In my view the learned Munsiff ought to have first determined that question. It is only on finding that the plaintiff has title to the land, will the question of reference under S.125 arise. The order under challenge is set aside, and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.