JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant laid the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents uncles from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property. The trial court by its judgment dated November 30, 1973 dismissed the suit. Pending appeal, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1 of 1974 came into force making extensive amendments to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 for short the Act. Section 45A conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal constituted under the Act to decide the question of tenancy and nature of the agricultural land and the Civil Court was directed under S. 133 to make a reference calling for a report from the Tribunal and on receipt thereof to decide the other questions in the suit. The learned District Judge by his order referred the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the tenancy was in favour of the joint family and not to the appellant. Based thereon the District Judge dismissed the appeal. In the Misc. Second Appeal No. 97 of 1975 by judgment dated February 23, 1978: (reported in AIR 1978 Karnataka 136), the division bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. The facts not in dispute are that the appellants father and the respondents are brothers. His suit is based on his tenancy rights for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the alleged possession of the lands bearing R.S. Nos. 134 and 135 situated in Kittur Village and R.S. No. 109 situated in Mardur Village in Haven Taluk of Sharwar District in State of Karnataka. The division bench held thus (AIR 1978 Kant 136 at p. 140):

"Whenever a statute confers a duty on an authority to decide a question and a corresponding right on an individual or individuals it has to be assumed that the statute, has, by necessary implication conferred on that authority the power to decide all issues which are incidental and ancillary to the main question to be decided. Otherwise the Tribunal will have to keep all the applications pending until such issues are decided by the Civil Court. In fact there is no procedure prescribed by the Act to refer such issues for the decision of the Civil Court. We do not think that it would be reasonable to hold that the Tribunal should await the decision of the Civil court on such issues, in view of sub-sec. (5) of S. 48A. which requires the Tribunal to hold an enquiry into all rival claims made in respect of registration of the occupancy rights in respect of the agricultural lands before disposing of the applications made to it. We, therefore, hold that the Land Tribunal is competent to decide for the purpose of disposing of the applications under S. 48A the question whether the lease-hold rights were held exclusively by the appellant or by the joint family consisting of the appellant and the respondents before the partition took place and thereafter by all of them as co-tenants till the appointed day. It is its duty to do so under the Act. The said question could not therefore be decided by the Civil Court in view of 5 132 of the Act,"

Section 44 of the Act in Chapter III reads thus:

44. "Vesting of land in the State Government - (1) All lands held by or in the possession of tenants (including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under S. 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government,

(2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequen