Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1981 DIGILAW 181 (KER)

KALLIANIKUTTY AMMA v. GOVINDAN NAIR

1981-07-20

U.L.BHAT

body1981
Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against the finding recorded by a Land Tribunal on a reference made by the Civil Court under S.125 (3) of Kerala Act I of 1964. Reference having been made the Land Tribunal duly recorded finding and sent the papers to the Civil Court as required under clause (4) of S.125. Suit is still pending and has not been finally disposed of. It is at that stage that the revision is filed under S.115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the finding. 2. Learned counsel for the 46th respondent, Sri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision. According to learned counsel, a revision does not lie under S.115 CPC. against a mere finding of the Land Tribunal which is yet to become part of the finding of the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that in view of clause (6) of S.125 whereby a finding of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be part of the finding of the Civil Court, the impugned finding in this case has to be treated as the finding of the Civil Court and in such an eventuality the revisional jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked under S.115 CPC. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of this Court repotted in Sreedharan v. Krishnan (1981 KLT. 554:1981 KLN 210). 3. Khalid J. in the above decision has held that where a finding of a Tribunal has been accepted by the executing court and the executing court has passed an order disposing of the execution petition a revision would lie under S.115 CPC. I do not think that the proposition laid down in the above decision would be of any assistance to the revision petitioner in so far as the maintainability of this revision is concerned. 4. S 115 CPC. vests jurisdiction in this Court to revise certain orders of subordinate courts, thereby meaning subordinate civil courts. There is no dispute before me that a decision or finding of a Land Tribunal, in the normal course, would not be an order revisable under S.115 CPC.; that is so because the Tribunal which gave the decision or the finding is not a subordinate civil court, but a Tribunal created by a special statute. 5. There is no dispute before me that a decision or finding of a Land Tribunal, in the normal course, would not be an order revisable under S.115 CPC.; that is so because the Tribunal which gave the decision or the finding is not a subordinate civil court, but a Tribunal created by a special statute. 5. The question is whether it can be said that the finding of the Tribunal could be deemed to be a finding of a civil court by virtue of clause (6) of S.125 so as to attract the applicability of S 115 CPC. Clause (1) of S.125 states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to 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 etc. Clause (2) states that no order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority shall be questioned in any civil court except as provided in this Act. It is clause (3) which provides for reference to the Tribunal by a civil court of a question contemplated in clause (1) aforesaid. Clause (4) requires a Tribunal to decide the referred question and return the records to the civil court. Clause (5) states that the civil court shall then proceed to decide the suit or other proceedings accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it. Clause (6) states that the decision of the Tribunal on the question referred to it shall, for the purpose of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court. 6. According to the scheme laid down in S.125 of the Act, in the normal course, a civil court has no jurisdiction to decide a question which would otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal. The only exception contemplated is the one laid down in clauses (3) to (6) whereby a civil court accepts the finding of the Tribunal but the appellate court could sit in judgment over the finding of the Tribunal. This is the only exception provided for in the general scheme of the Act whereby a civil court could sit in judgment over a decision of the Tribunal. This is the only exception provided for in the general scheme of the Act whereby a civil court could sit in judgment over a decision of the Tribunal. What clause (5) states is that the decision of the Tribunal shall be accepted by the civil court. Clause (6), it appears to me, has to be read along with clause (5). Clause (6) states that for the purpose of appeal the decision of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court. In other words, the decision of the Tribunal, as per the deeming provision becomes part of the finding of the civil court only when that finding is accepted by the civil court. The acceptance of the finding would take place only when the civil court finally disposes of the matter or passes some other order accepting the decision of the Tribunal. In such an eventuality the order of the civil court is the order which the civil court itself passes accepting the decision of the Tribunal and giving findings or decisions on other issues in the proceedings pending before it. If that be so, the order which would be revisable under S.115 CPC. would be that order of the civil court which incorporates the finding of the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal could not independently be treated as a finding of the civil court unless the civil court passes some order or judgment in the proceedings before it. The order of the Tribunal as such i. e , until it is incorporated in the order or judgment of a civil court, has no existence as a finding of a civil court and cannot be equated with a decision of a civil court so as to attract the operation of S.115 CPC. When the finding is accepted by the civil court, the order or judgment of the civil court would be appealable or revisable depending on the application of S.96 or S.115 CPC. as the case may be. Till then the finding of the Land Tribunal is not appealable or revisable. Hence the revision is not maintainable. The revision is dismissed but without costs.