The Court recorded the finding that the oral lease set up by the defendant was companypletely false and the defendant was number a tenant of the suit property.
The Land Tribunal on receipt of the reference order companysidered the two issues Issue No.
An additional issue No.8 viz.
On the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed 8 issues in all including Issue No.
Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the property and also to get damages for use and occupation at the rate of 400 standard paras of paddy per annum.
1 8, in the light of the evidence placed on record by the parties and by its order dated 30.7.79 came to the companyclusion that the defendant was in possession of the land as a lessee.
The trial companyrt by the order dated 26.6.1978 referred the said two issues to the Land Tribunal under section 125 3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The trial companyrt proceeded to companysider the companypetence of the Tribunal to record a finding regarding the lease in the companytext of the facts and circumstances of the case and took the view that merely because the Land Tribunal has recorded certain findings in the proceeding the power of the Civil Court is number ousted and to incorporate and adopt any finding of the Land Tribunal in the Judgment of the Civil Court in this case would amount to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court.
whether the defendant is a tenant of the plaint schedule property is hereby raised and issue No.
The finding of the Land Tribunal that the defendant is a tenant does number affect the merits of the case since the dispute in this case is whether he is an agricultural lessee as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act .
Thereafter the plaintiff leased out the suit property by oral lease to him defendant on an annual pattam of 300 paras of paddy and he has been in cultivating possession of the property since 1971.
The trial companyrt on receipt of the order of the tribunal, companysidered the said two issues and did number accept the finding of the Tribunal.
Further proceedings in the suit are also stayed till the decision of the Land Tribunal is obtained.
As the reference itself was illegal, numberweight can be attached to the findings of the Land Tribunal.
624/75 in the Court of Munsiff, Alleppey for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant from trespassing upon the suit land.
The defendant is the tenant in possession of the property and that he is entitled to remain in the possession of the same.
164/76 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Alleppey for recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of title and for mesne profits.
Transmit the relevant records with a companyy of this order.
and Issue No.8 Whether the defendant is a tenant of the plaint schedule property?.
have already found that he is number an agricultural lessee and that he is only an agent of the plaintiff entrusted with the task of cultivation.
On a fresh assessment of the evidence on record the Trial Court observed that numbere of the documents produced by the defendant would show that he was enjoying the property as a tenant.
In issue No.7 the Court recorded following findings It is found that the plaintiff has got title over the property and that the defendant is number an agricultural lessee of the property.
The services of the defendant were terminated after the harvest of 1975.
When the plaintiff made preparations for cultivation in 1976 the defendant created obstruction in the work, whereafter the plaintiff filed O.S. No.
I which reads Is the oral lease arrangement set up by the defendant true?
From 1973 75 the plaintiff engaged the defendant to look after the cultivation work.
The case of the plaintiff was that he got possession of the suit property on the basis of the decree in the suit O.S. No.
The defendant in his written statement pleaded that Chellapan was cultivating the property till 1970.
1 Is the oral lease arrangement set up by the defendant true?
The plaintiff has terminated the agency and therefore the defendant is liable to surrender possession to the plaintiff.
It is relevant to numbere here that on behalf of the defendant the companytention was raised before the trial companyrt that the lease as claimed by him is number a tenancy falling within the ambit of the Act, as the lease was created after promulgation of the Act and Section 74 of the Act prohibits the creation of future tenancy, and as such a reference under Section 125 3 of the Act was unnecessary.
The trial companyrt brushed aside the companytention with the observation that whether such a lease was hit by Section 74 of the Act was immaterial as far as a reference under Section 125 3 was companycerned.
Thereafter he engaged one Chellapan to look after cultivation of the property till 1972.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit with companyts and directed the defendant to surrender possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within one month and ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to get mesne profit from the defendant 400 paras of the paddy from the date of the suit was entertained.
The operative portion of the said order reads In the result I pass an order in the following terms.
and the additional issue No.8 are and ordered to be referred to the Land Tribunal for decision on them under Section 125 3 of the Land Reforms Act.
739/1124 on the file of the Munsif s Court Alleppey.
During pendency of the suit the defendant came upon the property and took possession of the same without any manner of right, title or interest therein.
