The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of occupancy rights by the Tribunal to an individual in respect of joint family tenanted lands will not have the effect of converting that into a separate property of that individual. Additionally, the court emphasized that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition.

JUDGMENT:

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. Defendant in the original suit is the appellant before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 4.3.1999 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 377 of 1992 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1992 in a suit for partition filed by the respondents herein passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Puttur, D. Kannada.

2. The relationship between the parties herein is not in dispute which would appear from the genealogical table given hereinafter.

Narayana Rai

(Thimmappa (Aithappa Subbayya (Ramanna Rai(Padmavathi daughter)(Savithri daughter)

Rai elder son )Rai Younger Rai (Son sinceson) (plaintiff(Def. No.2- Respondent(deft. No. 3

(def.1-Appellant)son-since deceased) =respondentNo.2respondent

deceasedSunanda) (wife)No.1No.3

(defendant No.4

respondent No.4)

3. Wife of Narayana Rai whose wife pre-deceased him.

4. Respondent herein filed a suit for partition in respect of the properties described in schedules "B", "C" and "D" of the plaint. The property described in schedule "B" of the plaint belonged to one Muddekatta Ramappa Gowda. The same had been taken on lease by Narayana Rai on chalageni basis long back. Allegedly parties hereto were holding the same jointly with the said Narayana Rai. Improvements have allegedly been

effected therein. The parties had been living together.

5. In or about 1960 a deed of lease was, however, executed in favour of the appellant. He was aged about 17 or 18 at that point of time. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 he filed a suit for declaration that he had been cultivating the said leasehold property for and on behalf of all the heirs and legal representatives of Narayana Rai. Occupancy right was granted in his favour by an Order dated 6.6.1979. A patta was also granted in his favour by the State of Karnataka on or about 21.12.1980. It is not in dispute that Aithappa died intestate without leaving any heir and his 1/5th share devolved on plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as well as defendant No. 4 (widow of Subbayya Rai).

6. So far as the "C" Schedule property is concerned, there is not much dispute in respect thereof. It belonged to Aithappa. He applied for grant of sanction of the State therefor, which having been granted, the same was assigned in his name. It was the self acquired and thus, absolute property of Aithappa Rai. On his death, it devolved upon all his heirs.

7. Insofar as the properties described in Schedule "D" of the plaint, are concerned, Narayana Rai obtained the same in a partition by and between him and his sisters which took place on 8.8.1962. Thus, on his death the same devolved upon his children. It was furthermore the case of the first respondent that late Subbayya Rai relinquished his share and right in favour of the defendant No. 1 in terms of a registered deed dated 9.3.1978. In a similar manner, defendant No. 2 who inherited 1/5th share in the "D" Schedule property exchanged his share with the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 under a deed of exchange dated 15.9.1976. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed 2/5th share in the said property.

8. The learned Trial Judge rejected the claim of the appellant holding that the settlement made in his favour by grant of occupancy right in the year 1974 enured to the benefit of all the heirs and legal representatives of Narayana Rai. Admission on the part of the appellant who examined himself as D.W. 1, according to the learned trial judge, established that it was Narayana Rai who had taken the said property on lease and only on his advice and at his instance the deed of lease was executed by the landlord in favour of the appellant. The said finding of the learned trial judge has been affirmed by the High Court.

9. Ms. Kiran Suri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, would draw our attention to the fact that grant of lease in favour of a tenant at the material time was governed by