Judgment :- 1. This suo mote revision is taken against the order passed by the Munsiff. Attingal, in OS. 298 of 1976. The plaintiff Devaswom filed the suit for recovery of possession of certain property of the defendant. The defendant claimed fixity of tenure over the disputed land as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were framed by the Munsiff. They read as follows: "4. Whether defendant has fixity of tenure under the document of 1961? 5. Has the defendant fixity of tenure under the provisions of the KLR. Act? These two issues were referred to the Land Tribunal for determination, and the Land Tribunal on 24-3-1986 passed an order. The Land Tribunal decided these two issues in the following manner: "Ext. C1 report discloses that as per settlement registers of the PW. Dpt. an extent of 2.89 acres of land comprised in Sy. N.1 of Attingal village is "Kavu poramboke" that out of it 2 50 acres of land has been given on Kuthagapattom at the rate of Rs. 11.25 per annum to the applicant, that he his remitted the Kuthagapattom till the year 1985 and that the Kuthagapattom was given to the applicant since 1955 by the then Sreepadom Palace Since it is brought out that the tenure of land is Kavuporamboke and that it originally belonged to Sreepadom the assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner whether the land belongs to Government as Devaswom Board it is governed by the provisions of Sreepadom Land Enfranchisement Act 1969 (Act 20 of 69) and that no provisions of the KLR. Act can be taken into force to settle the claim of applicant for assignment". When the above decision reached the Munsiff's Court the defendant filed I. A. 1273 of 1986 to set aside the order of the Land Tribunal. After hearing both sides the Munsiff held that the Land Tribunal bad not applied its mind and only copied the order dated 31-8-1977 without properly complying with the directions of the court. Therefore the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside. 2. What has been done by the Munsiff is clearly illegal and unsustainable. The reference to the Land Tribunal was made under S.125(3) of the K.L.R. Act. Therefore the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside. 2. What has been done by the Munsiff is clearly illegal and unsustainable. The reference to the Land Tribunal was made under S.125(3) of the K.L.R. Act. Sub-section (6) of S.125 says that the decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to shall be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court and sub-section (5) of S.125 says that after receipt of the finding of the Land Tribunal the civil court shall proceed to decide the suit or other proceedings accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it. Sub-section (2) of S.125 makes it clear that no order of the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority or the Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government under the K.L.R. Act shall be questioned in any civil court, except as provided in this Act. 3. When the civil court referred issue Nos. 4 and 5 to the Land Tribunal the finding entered by the Land Tribunal will form part of the finding of the civil court and the court will refer to the Land Tribunal's decision to decide the case. The person aggrieved by the finding of the Land Tribunal can challenge the same before the Appellate Court. Here the Munsiff has chosen to set aside the order of the Land Tribunal which is not permissible under the law. The reasons given by the Munsiff that the Land Tribunal copied an earlier order and has not adverted to the relevant facts are beside the point. The defendant was at liberty to challenge it before the appellate court. The order passed by the Munsiff is not sustainable and the same is set aside and the court below is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law after accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal under issue Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit. The C.R.P. is disposed of as above. No costs. Dismissed.