Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioners are the legal representatives of Sankaran Kandakunju who filed O.A. 143 of 1971 before the Land Tribunal, Sherthallai under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of kudikidappu right. That application was dismissed and the decision was confirmed in appeal. 2. Originally on 29-3-72 the Land Tribunal passed a preliminary order finding that the applicant is a kudikidappukaran. Respondent took up the matter before the Appellate Authority in A.A.1620 of 1972. The appeal was dismissed. Subsequently on 26-2-76 the Land Tribunal passed the final order allowing the application. That was challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Authority in L.R.A.S. 681 of 1977. On the basis of the decree obtained by the respondent against the applicant in O.S.No.1166 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Sherthallai, a copy of which was produced before the Appellate Authority, the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the case remanded. Subsequent to the remand on 4-8-1980 the Land Tribunal dismissed the application on the finding that in view of the above-said decision of the civil court the applicant is not entitled to kudikidappu right. A.A. No. 332 of 1980 filed by the applicant was dismissed. Applicant is no more and his legal representatives filed this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued before me that O.S. No. 1166 of 1970 was a mere suit for injunction in which a reference to the Land Tribunal on the question of kudikidappu right was neither necessary nor maintainable. The further plea was that such a reference in an injunction suit was without jurisdiction and as such a nullity. On the foundation of these challenges the further attempt was to show that the decision of the Munsiff accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal itself was without jurisdiction and as such a nullity and therefore cannot operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings. 4. For that argument the learned advocate sought support from the decisions in Thankamma v. State of Kerala (1982 K.L.T. 496), Kakkattil Service Co-op. Rural Bank Ltd. v. Co-operative Tribunal (1983 K. L.T. 50) and Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 S.C. 340). All these decisions related to cases of want of inherent jurisdiction in the courts or Tribunals which passed the decrees or orders challenged. None of those decisions are applicable for our purpose. Rural Bank Ltd. v. Co-operative Tribunal (1983 K. L.T. 50) and Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 S.C. 340). All these decisions related to cases of want of inherent jurisdiction in the courts or Tribunals which passed the decrees or orders challenged. None of those decisions are applicable for our purpose. It is a fundamental principle of lav that a court executing the decree is not competent to go behind the decree. Its right and duty is only to execute the decree as it is and not to add or subtract any thing. That is the position not only in cases of correct decisions but also erroneous ones provided the court rendering the decision is having jurisdiction. A court having jurisdiction can decide rightly or wrongly. Even a wrong decision rendered with jurisdiction is binding on the parties and their representatives unless it is challenged and corrected by appeal, revision or other modes recognised by law. Such wrong or erroneous decisions with jurisdiction also will operate as res judicata is subsequent proceedings. Ia all such cases the execution court cannot question the correctness of the decree or refuse to execute the same on the ground that it is wrong. 5. The main or the only exception to such a rule is in cases where the decree is a nullity on account of lack of inherent jurisdiction of the court which passed it. In such a case the decree itself is a nullity which means that it is as good as the decree not having been rendered. The nullity of the decree on account of lack of inherent jurisdiction is a matter which could be taken note of even by the execution court. It can refuse to execute the decree on the ground that legally there is no such decree. These alone are the principles laid down in the above decisions. Those decisions, therefore, will not, in any way help the revision petitioners. 6. It is true that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, where the question of possession alone is material, a reference to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act may not be necessary. These alone are the principles laid down in the above decisions. Those decisions, therefore, will not, in any way help the revision petitioners. 6. It is true that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, where the question of possession alone is material, a reference to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act may not be necessary. The reason is that dispute regarding possession is not a matter to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Land Tribunal or Appellate Authority or Land Board or Taluk Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Only on such matters the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted under S.125(1) of the Act. The question of staying the suit and referring the matter to the Land Tribunal will come up only when the question regarding the right of a tenant or a kudikidappukaran including the question as to whether a person is a tenant or kudikidappukaran arises in a suit or other proceeding instituted after 1-1-1970 on which date Act 35 of 1969 came into force amending the Land Reforms Act. That is because these are matters exclusively to be decided by the Land Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted. Dispute regarding possession is a dispute of a civil nature. All suits involving disputes of civil nature could be tried by civil courts on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred under S.9 of the C.P.C., provided their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly not barred. Jurisdiction to decide pure disputes regarding possession is not so barred under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It will be barred only when any of the questions enumerated in S.125 of the Land Reforms Act is involved. Jurisdiction conferred by a statute enacted in exercise of the judicial power of the State could be taken away or abridged only by the provisions of such an enactment. That is why in a suit for injunction simpliciter, where possession alone has to be decided, no reference to the Land Tribunal is held necessary. 7. In a suit for injunction pure and simple relating to possession when no claim of tenancy or kudikidappu was raised by the defendant, no court will make a reference to the Land Tribunal. That is why in a suit for injunction simpliciter, where possession alone has to be decided, no reference to the Land Tribunal is held necessary. 7. In a suit for injunction pure and simple relating to possession when no claim of tenancy or kudikidappu was raised by the defendant, no court will make a reference to the Land Tribunal. Sometimes in such a suit in order to contest the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant may contend that he is a tenant in possession or a kudikidappukaran entitled to easements and hence the injunction cannot be granted. In order to decide whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction or not such questions may have to be decided in certain cases depending upon facts. In those cases in spite of the fact that the suit is only one for injunction it cannot be said that reference to the Land Tribunal is unnecessary. But there may be other suits for injunction in which, is spite of the tenancy or kudikidappu right raised by the defendant, those questions need not be decided and the only question to be decided is possession. In such cases a reference to the Land Tribunal may be unnecessary. But in spite of that fact if the parties joined issue on the question of tenancy or kudikidappu, and suffered a reference to the Land Tribunal and courted a finding on the basis of which the suit was decided and the decision has become final, that decision is binding on the parties and their representatives and it will operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. If the reference was unnecessary it will only be an erroneous procedure and the decision will at the maximum be an erroneous one. No question of lack of jurisdiction is involved and there is no question of the decision being a nullity and as such could be ignored by a party or his representative. Want of inherent jurisdiction is not there and if at all what is involved is only an erroneous exercise of the jurisdiction. The decision is not tendered void or invalid thereby if not rectified by appeal or revision. 8. In this case none of these questions could arise at all. The predecessor of the revision petitioners was admittedly residing in a building standing in an item of property belonging to the respondent. The decision is not tendered void or invalid thereby if not rectified by appeal or revision. 8. In this case none of these questions could arise at all. The predecessor of the revision petitioners was admittedly residing in a building standing in an item of property belonging to the respondent. Respondent filed O.S. No. 1166 of 1970 against him not only for injunction but also for realisation of damages on the ground that he unauthorisedly plucked coconuts from the property. He was alleged to be not a kudikidappukaran. As defendant in that suit, the predecessor of the revision petitioners, claimed to be a kudikidappukaran and said that the prayer for injunction and claim for damages will not stand for the further reason that as kudikidappukaran he is entitled to some customary rights which included taking income from some coconut trees. Issue No.1 was relating to the kudikidappu right and its extent and issue No.4 was concerting the customary right and the claim for damages. Those issues were referred to the Land Tribunal and they were found against the predecessor of the revision petitioners. Accepting those findings the suit was decreed and the decision became final without any appeal. 9. Even though one of the prayers included in that suit was for injunction it cannot be said to be a suit for injunction simpliciter. Possession alone was not the question that arose for consideration in that case. The existence or otherwise of the kudikidappu right was not only an issue but it was an essential dispute that had to be decided for the purpose of an effective disposal of the suit for granting or refusing injunction. So also the suit contained a prayer for realisation of damages for the decision of which also dispute regarding the kudikidappu right bad necessarily to be decided. Parties joined issue and they suffered a reference to the Land Tribunal. Predecessor of the revision petitioners courted an adverse finding and suffered an adverse decision in that case on the basis of the finding that be is not a kudikidappukaran. After the decision has become final and conclusive neither himself nor his successors are entitled to contend that the decree is a nullity and it cannot operate as resjudicata. The argument that the decree has to be ignored for the purpose of deciding the dispute regarding kudikidappu afresh has absolutely no force of law. 10. After the decision has become final and conclusive neither himself nor his successors are entitled to contend that the decree is a nullity and it cannot operate as resjudicata. The argument that the decree has to be ignored for the purpose of deciding the dispute regarding kudikidappu afresh has absolutely no force of law. 10. After the reference to the Land Tribunal and the decision of the civil court accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal there was absolutely no jurisdiction for the Land Tribunal to entertain a second application for kudikidappu right. Such a claim is evidently barred by res judicata, which is applicable to Land Tribunals also. Even though originally the Land Tribunal allowed the application, being unaware of the earlier decisions, the mistake was corrected by the Appellate Authority and the matter was remanded. Now the concurrent decision of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority is that the present proceedings is incompetent and not maintainable for the reason that the present claim of kudikidappu right is barred by res judicata on account of the earlier finding and the decision rendered by the civil court accepting that finding. The stand taken by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority is perfectly correct in law and there is absolutely no reason for interference in revision. C.R.P. is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. Dismissed.