ORDER S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. 13897 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittoor is the revision petitioner. The revision petition has been filed against the order in I.A. 391/98. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of plaint 'A' schedule property from defendants and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into any portion of the property described as 'B' schedule to the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Doraiswamy Chettiar. He was a person having excess land and as per the orders of the Taluk Land Board he surrendered excess land. The plaint schedule property was assigned by the Government in favour of the plaintiff's husband Doraian. Doraian later settled the properly in favour of the plaintiff on 13-1-97 as per registered document No.122/97 of Chittoor Sub Registry Office. According to plaintiff, the plaintiff's husband allowed the defendants as licensees to be in possession of a small house described in 'A' schedule to the plaint. The licence was terminated and hence the suit is filed for the reliefs mentioned in the plaint. 2. The defendants filed written statement. According to written statement, the plaint schedule property belongs to the family of Kuppayyan and they are not liable to be dispossessed from the suit property. The second defendant's father was a tenant. There is no relation whatever be with the plaintiff. The defendants filed present I. A. to refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the application and referred the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal. The draft issues were raised in the case and one of the issues is that the father of the second respondent Kaliappa Gounder is having tenancy right in the property. Another issue raised is whether the plaintiff is having ownership of the property. In the impugned order the court below has stated that a specific issue was framed regarding the tenancy right of Kaliappa Gounder in this case, the tenancy right cannot be decided by a civil court. Since the defendants have taken a specific plea of tenancy right in the property, the Land Tribunal is the only authority to decide the matter as per the law. Hence the petition was allowed. Since the defendants have taken a specific plea of tenancy right in the property, the Land Tribunal is the only authority to decide the matter as per the law. Hence the petition was allowed. It is challenging the above order that the present C.R.P. is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K. I. Mayankutty Mather submitted that the question of tenancy does not arise in this case. According to him, the plaintiff has taken the contention that plaintiff is the owner of the property by virtue of the settlement deed executed by her husband. The husband got the property by virtue of assignment by the Government under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The defendants contend that the title of the property is with the family of Kuppayyan and from Gounder the second defendant's father obtained tenancy right and that tenancy right has devolved on the defendants. The learned counsel submitted that even if it is admitted that the second defendant is a tenant of Kuppayyan unless Kuppayyan's title is proved, the defendant will not be able to substantiate his case. According to counsel, the question is only with regard to title. Hence the question of tenancy need not be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri.V. Giri contended that an issue has been raised in this case as to whether the second defendant's father is a tenant. That issue was raised when the court below found that it actually arise for consideration. In so far as the issue has not been deleted, the court below was competent to refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal. He further contended that if the Land Tribunal on reference finds that he is a tenant and even if the plaintiff has got title to the property, the plaintiff cannot claim relief in the suit. 5. The question is whether on the basis of the pleadings in this case the question of tenancy arise for consideration. As per Sec.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, if the question of tenancy or question of right of tenancy arises for consideration in the suit, then that question can be referred to the Land Tribunal, and till then further proceedings in the court shall be stayed. A number of decisions have been rendered by this court, after coming into force of S.125(3). A number of decisions have been rendered by this court, after coming into force of S.125(3). The impact of S.125(3) appears to be that when a person claims to be a tenant of the property, that question has to be decided by the Land Tribunal. But if a suit can be disposed of without considering the question as to whether the plaintiff or defendants is a tenant, then it cannot be said that question of tenancy arises for consideration. Even if an issue is raised, ample power is given under the CPC to the court to strike off that issue if it is found subsequently that such an issue does not arise for consideration. Now let us examine the pleadings in the case. The reliefs prayed for in the plaint to evict the defendants from plaint 'A' schedule after declaring the title of the plaintiff and to restrain the defendants from entering into the plaint 'B' Schedule property. Second defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff's husband's sister. First defendant is her husband. The plaintiffs husband acquired the property as per the proceedings of the District Collector, Palghat in 1976. In 1990, the second defendant and her mother met the husband of the plaintiff and sought permission to reside in a building in 'A' schedule and accordingly consent was given to them to reside in the building. The defendants are residing from June, 1990 in 'A' schedule building. It is further averred that inspite of the withdrawal of the consent, the defendants are residing in the building and they are trying to encroach into plaint 'B' schedule property. In the written statement what is contended is that the real owner of the property is the family of Kuppayan. The second defendant's father Kaliappa Gounder had a tenancy right from Kuppayan and it is on that basis they are staying in the property. The tenancy of Kaliappa Gounder had devolved on the defendants. It is further stated neither the plaintiff nor Doraian did not have any right over the plaint schedule properties. The settlement is also denied. Thus the defendants claimed tenancy right on the basis of Kaliappa Gounder's right under Kuppayan. Essentially in this case the plaintiff can get a decree only if the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to the plaint schedule property. The settlement is also denied. Thus the defendants claimed tenancy right on the basis of Kaliappa Gounder's right under Kuppayan. Essentially in this case the plaintiff can get a decree only if the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to the plaint schedule property. Even if the defendants contend that they are tenants under Kuppayan, unless the defendants established the title of Kuppayan to be legally acceptable than that of the plaintiff's husband, they will have to suffer a decree against them. Of course there are certain tenancies under the Kerala Land Reforms Act which gave right to certain tenants even if the person executing the sale deed is not competent. But the facts of this case does not disclose such a situation. In Chacko Kochu v. Abraham, 1977 KLT 868 His Lordship Justice Kochu Thommen held that in a suit for declaration of title when the defendant denies title of the plaintiff and in alternative raises the question of tenancy, the question of tenancy need be referred only after a finding is obtained on the question of title. 6. In Kunhiraman v. Chandran and Others, 1977 KLT 931 Justice Janaki Amma considered the question as to whether the suit is to be stayed when the tenancy right is claimed not under any of the parties to suit or any strangers. Learned Judge held thus: "What S.125(3) contemplates is a dispute regarding the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties to the suit. In a case where A claims an item of property as his own and B claims that he holds a tenancy right in respect of the item under C, a stranger, there is no dispute as to the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between A and B and there is no necessity to refer the dispute between A and B to the decision of the Land Tribunal." The above view of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair v. Radha Amma and Others, 1987 (1) KLT 195 . There the Division Bench was considering the question whether in an inter se dispute between the defendants as to the leasehold right whether the question should be referred to the Land Tribunal. The decision of Janaki Amma, J. in 1977 KLT 931 was cited. There the Division Bench was considering the question whether in an inter se dispute between the defendants as to the leasehold right whether the question should be referred to the Land Tribunal. The decision of Janaki Amma, J. in 1977 KLT 931 was cited. Regarding the above judgment, the Division Bench held thus: "With great respect, we agree with the learned Judge in so far as the principle behind this illustrations is concerned. That is a case where there is no dispute regarding ownership right. Ownership right is set up in two different persons. In the case of claims of tenancy right under rival claimants to title, the question of tenancy right is in effect the question of title. The question of title can be decided in the suit itself and no reference is called for." Thus in the present case, as held by the Division Bench, the question of tenancy is actually the question of title. Hence it need not be referred to the Land Tribunal. In the above view of the matter, the order of the court below is set aside. The C.R.P. is allowed.