Tenancy reference to Tribunal bars civil court merits decision; decree passed in breach of the statutory scheme is vulnerable.

Once a tenancy issue is referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the civil court must await the Tribunal's finding and cannot proceed to decide the suit on merits in relation to that referred issue. A decree passed without vacating the stay or recalling the reference is treated as beyond the court's competence to that extent and is unsustainable. Passive participation does not amount to waiver, because a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by acquiescence. The note therefore states that a challenge to such a decree remains maintainable, and the matter must be reconsidered in accordance with the statutory reference procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court could dispose of the suit while the issue of tenancy had been referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the defendants were barred by acquiescence from challenging the decree passed without awaiting the Tribunal's finding.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court could dispose of the suit while the issue of tenancy had been referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Analysis: Once the tenancy issue was referred to the Tribunal and the suit was stayed, the civil court was bound to await the Tribunal's finding. Section 133(2) curtailed the civil court's power to proceed on matters that depended upon the referred tenancy question. Without vacating the stay or recalling the reference, the court had become functus officio for the time being in relation to the referred issue and could not validly decide the suit on merits insofar as it turned on that question.

Conclusion: The civil court lacked competence to decide the suit on merits in respect of the matters covered by the reference, and the decree passed to that extent was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants were barred by acquiescence from challenging the decree passed without awaiting the Tribunal's finding.

Analysis: Passive participation in the proceedings did not amount to consent to a course of action that was a jurisdictional nullity. A decree passed without jurisdiction remains vulnerable whenever and wherever challenged, and any supposed acquiescence cannot validate an order made in derogation of the statute. The defendants' conduct therefore did not amount to a waiver of the objection to jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge was not barred by acquiescence, and the objection to jurisdiction was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, the decree was set aside to the extent it was rendered without awaiting the Tribunal's finding, and the matter was left to be reconsidered in accordance with the statutory reference procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a civil court has referred a tenancy issue to the competent Tribunal and stayed the suit, it cannot decide the suit on merits concerning that issue until the Tribunal returns its finding; a decree passed in violation of that statutory scheme is a nullity and is not validated by acquiescence.

---