IMPORTANT POINT
No Civil Court can decide any question as to whether land in dispute is an agricultural land or whether the person claiming to be in possession thereof is or is not a tenant of the said land.

Headnote:Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-Sections 132 and 133-Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Suit filed by first respondent for declaration that he and third respondent are owners of suit land and for possession from original appellant-He had impleaded his father as second defendant in the suit and his mother as third defendant-Plaintiff s claim that his father was a spent thrift and that on receiving some money he relinquished his interest in joint family property-Father of respondents executed a registered sale deed in favour of appellant-Sale in favour of appellant challenged as not binding on them-Entries in various revenue records showed that suit land was either under personal cultivation of second defendant or of two other tenants-Suit lands were tenanted lands-Whether appellant was a tenant in respect of the land could have been decided by civil Courts -(No)-Matter remitted to trial Court to refer the issue to Land Reforms Tribunal for adjudication and report.
       Held : The High Court merely referred to Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to state that some of the entries in the revenue records indicated that the appellant was not in possession of the lands. However, the first appellate court after referring to the order of permission granted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar concluded that since in the said documents the appellant had been described as a tenant, he, therefore, should be presumed to be a tenant notwithstanding the entries appearing in the record of rights. The presumption arising under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 will, therefore, by itself, not be enough and if the same could be disturbed such a presumption can be decided with reference to any other material. While the first appellate court gave importance to Ex. D-14 the permission granted by the Tahsildar, the High Court said that it is of no consequence. However, in the circumstances of the case the finding recorded by the first appellate court is final. It has taken the view that description of the appellant in the order of permission granted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar would tilt the matter which clearly indicated that the appellant was the tenant in respect of the entire land. But in the second order made by the High Court the learned Judge has gone on to set out various principles which really have no bearing on the matter. The court had to examine the effect of the documents on record and come to the conclusion one way or the other. The first appellate court considered the effect of these documents and came to the conclusion that it had been established that the appellant was in possession of the suit land only in the capacity of a tenant and he had not acquired title under the sale deeds in question since the said sale deeds were invalid. (Para 9)
       Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters, which are to be decided by a Tribunal. Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act provides for suits and other proceedings that are required to be decided by a Tribunal under the Act. No civil court can decide any question as to whether land in dispute is an agricultural land or whether the person claiming to be in possession thereof is or is not a tenant of the said land as on 1.3.1974. All tenancies came to an end on 1.3.1974 under Section 5 of the Act. Thus, what is contemplated by Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is that if there is any existing tenancy right as on 1.3.1974 then civil court shall have to frame an issue relating to tenancy and refer the same to Tribunal. (Para 11)
       In the present case, the suit had been brought by the first respondent for various reliefs including that of possession and that right had been defeated on the ground that on the relevant date the suit lands were tenanted lands and, therefore, from 1.3.1974 he did not have rights as owner and the land having vested in the State and on that basis suit had been dismissed. It is not so much as to declare the rights of the first appellant that such finding had been recorded but it is more to defeat the claim of the appellant. Whether the first defendant can protect his possession otherwise or not is not to be decided in these proceedings. Prima facie, the first appellate court could not hold that the appellant was a tenant in respect of the land and issues 10-A and 10-B should have been decided only by a Tribunal constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-A suit was filed by the first respondent for declaration that he and third Respondent Fakirawwa are the owners of the suit land and for possession from the original Appellant (Laxmappa) and for other incidental reliefs. He had impleaded his father as second defendant in the suit and his mother as third defendant. It is claimed that his father was a spent thrift; that since he and his younger brother did not want to continue to be joint and on receiving a sum of Rupees One thousand relinquished his interest in the joint family property by executing a registered deed dated 26.4.1960; that thereafter he and his younger brother became owners in possession of the said properties; that about 4 or 5 years later his younger brother died and in terms of the Hindu Succession Act their mother succeeded to his share; that thus the said properties came under his and his mother s ownership and possession; when the matter stood thus even though his father had relinquished his rights over the plaint schedule land, he executed a registered sale deed on 16.4.1963 in favour of the appellant and put him in possession of the same; he claimed that the said sale in favour of Appellant is not binding on him and his mother.

2. The appellant denied the execution of the relinquishment deed dated 26.4.1960 and contended that as the father of the first respondent had incurred debts and for discharge of the same borrowed from the appellant a sum of Rs. 2000 and created a mortgage in 1950 in his favour in respect of entire land in R.S. No. 15/A measuring 11 Acres 16 guntas. Again the father of 1st respondent borrowed Rs. 3000/- and executed an advance lease deed ( Agavu Lavani ) in favour of respondent for a period of 60 years and executed a registered deed on 26.8.1952 in respect of entire acre of 11 acres 16 guntas of land. His name is included in revenue records as tenant in ME 1014 and has been in possession thereof since then. During the subsistence of that lease the father of the first respondent again approached the appellant for money for family necessity and to discharge his prior debts and took a sum of Rs. 1000/- and executed a registered sale deed dated 26.4.1960 in respect of an extent of 5 acres 30 guntas on the northern side in that land after obtaining the requisite permission from the jurisdictional Tahsildar; that thus the appellant became the absolute owner of that portion of 5 acres 30 guntas; that the mother of the first respondent was also in need of money for family necessity and for discharging the debt due by her husband borrowed a loan of Rs. 2000/- from him and executed a registered sale deed in that behalf on 16.12.1960 acting as the guardian of the first respondent and his younger brother who were minors at that time; that from that date onwards he became the absolute owner also and has been in possession of the same; that the father of the first respondent, who was again in need of money, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1000/- on 16.4.1983 in respect of certain lands after obtaining permission of the Tahsildar and thus the said two sale deeds dated 16.12.1960 and 16.4.1963 were legally valid and binding on defendants 2 and 3 and the plaintiff. In this manner, the appellant claimed that he became the absolute owner of the entire extent of 11 acres 16 guntas both as a tenant and subsequently as a full owner thereof and continued to be in possession of the said land as a tenant. He also raised certain contentions regarding limitation and that he had perfected his title by adverse possession over the land. He also alternatively contended that if the deed of transfer dated 16th April 1963 is invalid, his tenancy rights were not affected and from 1.3.1974 the tenanted land vested in Government and that, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of possession from him. He also contended that the relinquishment deed referred to in the plaint was not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 473

IMPORTANT POINTNo Civil Court can decide any question as to whether land in dispute is an agricultural land or whether the person claiming to be in possession thereof is or is not a tenant of the said land.

IMPORTANT POINT
No Civil Court can decide any question as to whether land in dispute is an agricultural land or whether the person claiming to be in possession thereof is or is not a tenant of the said land.