JUDGMENT : 1. The additional third plaintiff came up with this appeal against the decree and judgment of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, in a suit for recovery of possession based on title. The subject matter of the suit comes to two items of property having a total extent of 8.75 acres of land out of a large extent of 26 acres, the subject matter of a lease of the year 1934 produced and marked as Ext.A1, a Kanam lease from a Kaviyattu tarwad, the Janmam right holder. 2. The defendants contested the suit claiming assignment of lease hold right under two registered documents, and two purchase certificates dated 13/06/1984 in respect of item No.1, 04/08/1984 in respect of item No.2. On getting knowledge, the plaintiff moved before the Land Tribunal and filed an appeal before the appellate authority and got the purchase certificate set aside and a remand of the matter back to the Land Tribunal and it is pending there. 3. An application was submitted under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant before the Land Tribunal to stay its proceedings till the disposal of the suit. That application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal. The matter was taken up before this court under Article 226 and this court by order dated 18.1.1990 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and directed the Land Tribunal to keep the proceedings stayed till the adjudication of the civil court with an observation that if there is a reference under Section 125 (3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, the Land Tribunal can proceed with the same. Consequently, the civil court proceeded with the matter and a decree was passed rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. In appeal, it was confirmed, against which this appeal by the additional 3rd plaintiff. 4. The substantial questions principally came up for consideration are: (1) Whether it is permissible to adjudicate a civil dispute between the same parties with respect to the same property by a civil court, when the same issue or a substantial portion of the issue pending consideration before a Land Tribunal or an appellate authority constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ? (2) Whether the proceedings before the Land Tribunal or appellate authority constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 would acquire the character of a separate suit for the purpose of Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure ? (3) Whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play, when there is a reference under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ? 5. The Kerala Land Reforms Act,1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is a special enactment intended to confer statutory benefits on a section of beneficiaries by which certain matters which would otherwise come under the purview of civil court brought out of the jurisdiction of civil court and vested with the authorities constituted under the Act, namely Land Tribunal, appellate authority and Land Board thereof. With respect to a benefit conferred on a beneficiary under the said enactment, provisions were made for a reference under Section 125(3) of the Act to decide the issue by a Land Tribunal constituted under the Act when the matter came up for adjudication by a civil court. Section 125 of the said Act extracted below for reference: “125. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts -(1) 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 or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to proceedings pending in any Court at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969. (2) No order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil Court, except as provided in this Act. (2) No order of the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board or the Government or an officer of the Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil Court, except as provided in this Act. (3) If in any suit or other proceedings any question regarding rights of a tenant or of a kudikidappukaran (including a question as to whether a person is a tenant or a kudikidappukaran)arises, the Civil Court shall stay the suit or other proceeding and refer such question to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the land or part thereof is situate together with the relevant records for the decision of that question only. (4) The Land Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under sub-section (3) and return the records together with its decision to the Civil Court. (5) 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. (6) The decision of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the Civil Court. (7) No Civil Court have power to grant injunction in any suit or other proceeding referred to in sub-section (3) restraining any person from entering into or occupying or cultivating any land or kudikidappu or to appoint a receiver for any property in respect of which a question referred to in that sub-section has arisen, till such question is decided by the Land Tribunal, and any such injunction granted or appointment made before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, or before such question has arisen, shall stand cancelled. (8) In this section, “Civil Court” shall include a Rent Control Court as defined in the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.” (emphasis supplied) 6. Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure extracted below for reference : “10. (8) In this section, “Civil Court” shall include a Rent Control Court as defined in the Kerala Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.” (emphasis supplied) 6. Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure extracted below for reference : “10. Stay of suit -No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or in any court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like juris diction, or before the Supreme Court.” (emphasis supplied) 7. The bar under Section 125(1), (2) and (7) of the Act is a complete bar except the restriction imposed under Section 125 (6) of the Act by which the decision of Land Tribunal on the question referred shall for the purpose of an appeal be deemed to be part of finding of the Civil Court by which the appellate court is empowered to exercise its appellate jurisdiction over the decision rendered by the Land Tribunal under the reference as if it is a finding rendered by the civil court. In other words, the decision rendered by the Land Tribunal on a reference under Section 125(3) of the Act is not amenable for an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Act as the same would acquire the status of a finding of civil court in a decree for the purpose of an appeal against it. But the said jurisdiction of the first appellate court is really confined only to a reference made under Section 125(3) of the Act and decision thereof by the Land Tribunal. The said jurisdiction cannot be exercised when the decision was taken by the Land Tribunal on a matter required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, on a parallel proceedings initiated before the Land Tribunal without a reference under Section 125 (3) of the Act and the same is amenable for an appeal before the appellate authority and Land Board constituted under the Act. The civil court will not have any jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings before the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority by virtue of the specific bar under Section 125(1), (2) and (7) of the Act. As such the appellate court cannot sit in appeal against an order passed by the Land Tribunal in any of the matter which would come under its jurisdiction, without having a reference under Section 125 (3) of the Act. But the jurisdiction of the civil court or the appellate court as the case may be, so as to adjudicate its binding nature on any person who is not a party or on a person who is not bound by the order of the Land Tribunal or its admissibility in evidence being a document will not stand affected by the non-obstante clause. The deeming provision, Section 125(6) of the Act, that the decision of the Land Tribunal deemed to be a part of finding of the civil court, cannot be extended to any decision rendered the Land Tribunal in any parallel proceedings initiated other than through a reference under Section 125(3) of the Act. 8. Provisions were made in Section 125 (3) of the Act for staying the suit till the adjudication of the issue referred to the Land Tribunal and by virtue of Section 125(3),(4) and (5), the civil court is bound to accept the decision of Land Tribunal and can proceed with the suit only on receipt of the decision rendered by the Land Tribunal under the reference and till that time, the suit shall be stayed. But there is no provision for staying the suit on account of pendency of any parallel proceedings before the Land Tribunal other than the one under Section 125(3) of the Act, either initiated before or after the suit pertaining to the subject matter of the suit or any substantial portion thereof between the same parties and same property. The only provision enabling the civil court to stay its proceedings is incorporated under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure and for that purpose the proceedings pending before either Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board constituted under the Act would acquire the character of a suit. The above said authorities were constituted for the purpose of adjudicating certain matters, which would otherwise come under the purview of jurisdiction of the civil court. The above said authorities were constituted for the purpose of adjudicating certain matters, which would otherwise come under the purview of jurisdiction of the civil court. It is by virtue of the provision contained in the said Act by incorporating a non-obstante clause under Section 125(1) of the Act, certain matters which would otherwise come under the purview of civil court were carved out and brought under the purview of authority constituted under the Act for its determination. Those matters which would come under the purview of jurisdiction of Land Tribunal, appellate authority and Land Board constituted under the Act cannot be decided or determined by the civil court by virtue of operation of non- obstante clause in Section 125(1) of the Act, though the same would constitute an issue to be adjudicated between the parties with respect to the same subject matter pending before a civil court. The only recourse available to the civil court is to refer the said issue to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Act and wait for its decision by staying its own proceedings and to accept the decision rendered by the Land Tribunal and proceed with the suit as if it were a finding rendered by that court and to decide other issues by accepting the decision of the Land Tribunal. In short, the finding rendered by the Land Tribunal would acquire the character of the finding of the civil court when there is a reference under Section 125(3) of the Act. The civil court cannot proceed with the suit without having an adjudication on the referred issue pertaining to the conferment of a benefit under the Act when it constitutes a substantial issue to be adjudicated. The very same principle is applicable when there is a parallel proceedings before the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority or the Land Board. There is no scope for the civil court to adjudicate a substantial issue when it is dependent on an issue to be adjudicated by the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority and a parallel proceeding without having recourse to Section 125(3) of the Act, necessarily, the civil suit should be stayed till the adjudication of that issue by the Land Tribunal. There is only a change of forum for adjudication pertaining to the matter which would come under the purview of the Act from that of civil court to the Land Tribunal constituted under the Act. As such for the purpose of Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure -stay of suit, the proceedings before the Land Tribunal should be and must be considered as a 'previously instituted suit'. 9. Yet another question came up as to what would be the legal position when an independent parallel proceeding initiated before the Land Tribunal after the institution of the suit and whether it can be brought under the purview of a 'previously instituted suit' for the purpose of Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure overlooking the fact that it was subsequently instituted. If it is a proceeding initiated before the Land Tribunal subsequent to the suit, the court can consider whether the issue raised in the Land Tribunal could be amenable for a reference under Section 125(3) of the Act and whether it is required. If the answer is yes, the civil court can stay its proceedings till the adjudication of that issue by the Land Tribunal. But, this would lead to another issue as there is some gray portion as to the forum of appeal available against the decision of Land Tribunal when there is a parallel proceedings initiated subsequent to the suit and whether an appeal can be preferred before the appellate authority against that order or the order would stand as a finding of civil court by virtue of the deemed provision, Section 125(6) of the Act. The said question can be resolved effectively by issuing a reference under Section 125(3) of the Act by the civil court to the same Land Tribunal when it is satisfied that what is pending before the Land Tribunal would attract Section 125(3) of the Act. Then all incidence attached to Section 125(3) of the Act would follow including the forum of appeal and provision for staying the suit by the civil court till its adjudication by the Land Tribunal. 10. Then all incidence attached to Section 125(3) of the Act would follow including the forum of appeal and provision for staying the suit by the civil court till its adjudication by the Land Tribunal. 10. In the instant case, overlooking the pendency of a substantial issue regarding the conferment of a right under the provisions of the Act pending before the Land Tribunal, the trial court proceeded with the suit without staying its proceedings and culminated in a decree in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court, causing miscarriage of justice. Both the decrees are liable to be set aside. 11. The identity of the property also disputed claiming that the proceeding pending before the Land Tribunal is not with respect to the property covered by Ext.A1 document of the year 1934. The said question is not adjudicated either by the trial court or by the first appellate court and no relief was sought for declaration of title. Hence the trial court shall wait for the decision of the Land Tribunal by staying its proceedings and proceed with the suit on getting the adjudication from the Land Tribunal afresh. There will be a direction to the parties to maintain status quo till that time. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 05/11/2019 so as to get a formal posting of the case. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No costs.