Important Point
Assignment of tenancy right by an occupant of land under the Karnataka Land Reform Act in favour of a stranger is barred; and a devise under a Will in favour of a stranger would amount to an assignment of interest in the land and therefore, invalid under the provisions of Section 21.

Headnote:Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-Section 45 read with Sections 21 and 24-Occupancy right -Bar to assign-Object of law is not to allow strangers to the family of tenant to come upon the land-Tenanted land is not allowed to be sub-let i.e. to pass hands of a stranger nor any kind of assignment taking place in respect of lease held-Land can pass by succession to heirs of deceased tenant but subject to conditions prescribed in Section 21 - Assignment to strangers is barred-A devise under a Will in favour of a stranger would amount to an assignment of interest in lands and therefore, is invalid under Section 21.
       Held : This case gives rise to a difficult and doubtful question whether a devise under a Will would amount to an assignment of interest in the lands and, therefore, invalid under the provisions of Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act. What is prohibited under Section 21 of the Act is that there cannot be any sub-division or sub-letting of the land held by a tenant or assignment of any interest thereunder. Exceptions thereto are when the tenant dies, the surviving members of the joint family and if he is not a member of the joint family, his heirs shall be entitled to partition and sub-divide the land leased subject to certain conditions. Section 24 of the Act declares that when a tenant dies, the landlord is deemed to continue the tenancy to the heirs of such tenant on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant was holding at the time of his death. We have to read Section 21 with Section 24 to understand the full purport of the provisions. Section 24 is enacted only for the purpose of making it clear that the tenancy continues notwithstanding the death of the tenant and such tenancy is held by the heirs of such tenant on the same terms and conditions on which he had held prior to his death. The heirs who can take the property are those who are referable to in Section 21. If he is member of the joint family then the surviving members of the joint family and if he is not such a member of a joint family, his heirs would be entitled to partition. Again as to who his heirs are will have to be determined not with reference to the Act, but with reference to the personal law on the matter. The assignment of any interest in the tenanted land will not be valid. A devise or a bequest under a Will cannot be stated to fall outside the scope of the said provision inasmuch as such assignment disposes of or deals with the lease. When there is a disposition of rights under a Will though operates posthumously is nevertheless a recognition of the right of the legatee thereunder as to his rights of the tenanted land. In that event, there is an assignment of the tenanted land, but that right will come into effect after the death of the testator. Therefore, though it can be said in general terms that the device simpliciter will not amount to an assignment, in a special case of this nature interpretation will have to be otherwise. (Para 5)
       If we bear in mind the purpose behind Section 21, it becomes clear that the object of the law is not to allow strangers to the family of the tenant to come upon the land. The tenanted land is not allowed to be sub-let, i.e. to pass to the hands of a stranger nor any kind of assignment taking place in respect of the lease held. If the tenant could assign his interest, strangers can come upon the land, and therefore, the expression ‘assignment’ will have to be given such meaning as to promote the object of the enactment. Therefore, the deceased tenant can assign his rights only to the heirs noticed in the provision and such heirs could only be the spouse or any descendants or who is related to the deceased tenant by legitimate kinship. We must take into consideration that when it is possible for the tenant to pass the property to those who may not necessarily be the heirs under the ordinary law and who become heirs only by reason of a bequest under a Will in which event, he would be a stranger to the family and imported on the land thus to the detriment of the landlord. In that event, it must be taken that a devise under a Will also amount to an assignment and, therefore, not valid for the purpose of Section 21 of the Act. If Section 24 is read along with Section 21, it would only mean that the land can pass by succession to the heirs of a deceased tenant, but subject to the conditions prescribed in Section 21 of the Act. (Para 6)
       It was contended that on heir need not necessarily be natural descendant or one who is related by legitimate kinship, but others also and therefore if any interest in a property is devised to them, the same would not amount to assignment barred under Section 21 of the Act. It is no doubt true that the meaning attributed to an heir could be as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants so as to include the descendant and other persons related by legitimate kinship or otherwise who may be covered by a Will, but the true question to be decided in this case is if there is a devise of that nature is hit by Section 21 of the Act or not. The object and purpose of Section 21 being to confine the rights of tenancy only to those known under law as heirs and therefore, assignment to strangers is barred. (Para 7)

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi claiming to be a tenant in respect of land comprised in Survey No. 169/1A measuring about 16 acres 3 gunthas situated at Jamkhandi made an application to the Land Tribunal at Jamkhandi for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land. The Land Tribunal made an order on 28th March, 1988 holding that respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to occupancy rights in respect of the said land. Aggrieved by that order an appeal was preferred to the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Authority”). The Appellate Authority dismissed the same. Aggrieved by that order a Revision Petition was preferred before the High Court unsuccessfully. Hence this appeal by special leave.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :-

Sangappa Bangi made an application under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. During the pendency of the proceedings he made a Will on 8.4.1975 bequeathing his tenancy rights in respect of the land in favour of one Ameerjan who claims to be the Legal Representative of the appellant Sangappa who died during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal. She in turn executed another Will under which Husensab is making a claim to the land through the said Sangappa. Respondent 2 is the wife of said Sangappa while respondents 3 to 5 are children of Sangappa. The Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority examined the question whether right to tenancy could have been the subject matter of a bequest under a Will. In answering that question the Appellate Authority referred to a decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Shivanna v. Rachiah1, wherein it was stated that there was no prohibition against a tenant disposing of his interest by testamentary disposition. However it was stated that such testamentary disposition must be confined to the heirs of the deceased or an interpretation of the provision of Sections 21 and 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act that the tenancy rights are inherited only by legal representatives and not by anybody else; that tenancy could be deemed to have been continued in favour of heirs of the tenant. It is also made clear that transfer of tenancy rights made in violation of the provisions of Section 21 would be void. The High Court did not give any detailed reasons, but taking the view that the Appellate Authority and the Land Tribunal having concurrently held that respondents 2 to 5 are entitled for grant of occupancy rights found no reasons to interfere with the order made by them.

3. Shri S.K. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that it is clear from the law laid down by this Court in Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick2, that a bequest to be made under a Will is not confined to the issues, but may include others and a bequest under Will would not amount to assignment or transfer and in support of this proposition he further placed reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in 1977(1) KLJ 146 (Short Notes Item 160) (supra) to which we have adverted to earlier and Dhareppa v. State of Karnataka & Ors.3. He submitted that the Will is not a transaction wherein property will pass inter vivos inasmuch as the Will takes effect only on the death of a party and is not a mode of succession thereof and there is no element of transfer or assignment of the same. He further submitted that the view taken by the High Court in Timmakka Kom Venkanna Naik v. The Land Tribunal & Ors.4 is not correct and the High Court therein had placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in Dr. Anant Trimbak Sabnis v. Vasant Pratap Pandit5 which stated that assignment will also include a disposition under a will. He stated that enunciation was made in the context of Bombay Rent Act and under the Scheme of that enactment even disposition by Wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 983

Cases Referred (5)