SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1640

2008(8) Supreme 565
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Ishwaragouda & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Mallikarjun Gowda & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2002
Decided on : 07-11-2008

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Kiran Suri and Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar and Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 133 of the Karnataka Lad Reforms Act ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in cases decided by the Land Tribunal.

Headnote:Karnataka Land Reforms Act – Section 133 – When that question as to whether the joint family or one of the members was a tenant, was considered finally and authoritatively on merits by the Land Tribunal Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the same. (Para 9)

        (2000) 9 SCC 272; (1994) 2 SCC 57 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. The disputed land was an agricultural land belonging to one Laxmibai. After the death of Smt. Laxmibai, her grand sons inherited the said land and it was under cultivation of the predecessor in title of the appellants and the respondents.

        2. After coming into operation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Basanagowda, the father of the respondents filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights on the ground that they were in actual cultivation of the entire land. Parwategowda, the father of the appellants, simultaneously also filed an application under Form No. 7 claiming that the said land was being cultivated jointly by the family, i.e. the family of Basanagowda, the father of the respondents, and Parwategowda, the father of the appellants.

        3. Land Tribunal passed orders holding that Basanagowda and Parwategowda were jointly cultivating the lands and were entitled to occupancy rights in the said land. Aggrieved by the said order of the Land Tribunal, the respondents filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which dismissed the writ petition holding that the disputed land was taken on cultivation jointly by the family and that it was in joint cultivation. Matter was remitted to the Tribunal for demarcation of half portion of the land.

        4. The respondent’s appeal to Division Bench was dismissed.

        5. Meanwhile, the Land Tribunal allotted southern half portion to Parwategowda and his family and the Northern half portion to Basanagowda and his family.

        6. Respondent’s appeal and further revision petitions against the Tribunal’s order were dismissed. The High Court however observed that the party prejudiced can approach a civil court to claim exclusive possession of the disputed land.

        7. Respondent’s suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Gadag.

        8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants herein filed an appeal which was allowed holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of title and possession, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal.

        9. The respondents filed a Second Appeal in the High Court which set aside the judgment of the appellate court and allowed the appeal remanding back the matter to the first appellate court directing it to decide the matter in accordance with law in view of the observations made by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

        High Court was in error in setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remanding the matter to the same for decision in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgment.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. —

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th of August, 2001 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in a Second Appeal whereby, the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, remanding back the matter to the First Appellate Court to decide in accordance with law in view of the findings made by the High Court in the second appeal.

2. The relevant facts, as arising from the case made out by the appellants, which would assist us in appreciating the controversy involved are narrated in a nutshell, which are as follows:

3. The disputed land bearing RS No. 40 measuring 18 acres 32 guntas was an agricultural land belonging to one Laxmibai, situated in Harlapur village in Gadag taluka. After the death of Smt. Laxmibai, her grand sons inherited the said land and it was under cultivation of the predecessor in title of the appellants and the respondents. After coming into operation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (in short “the Act”), Basanagowda, the father of the respondents filed Form No. 7 under the Act for grant of occupancy rights on the ground that they were in actual cultivation of the entire land. Parwategowda, the father of the appellants, simultaneously also filed an application under Form No. 7 claiming that the said land was being cultivated jointly by the family, i.e. the family of Basanagowda, the father of the respondents, and Parwategowda, the father of the appellants. Both the above- mentioned applications were registered on the file of Land Tribunal, Gadag. On 21st of November, 1976, the Land Tribunal passed orders holding that Basanagowda and Parwategowda were jointly cultivating the lands and were entitled to occupancy rights in the said land. Aggrieved by the said order of the Land Tribunal, the respondents filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka being WP No. 2088 of 1977. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 17th of December, 1982, inter alia, holding that the disputed land was taken on cultivation jointly by the family and that it was in joint cultivation. However, for demarcation of half portion of the disputed land, the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal. The respondents thereafter filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed by an order dated 6th of June, 1983. Meanwhile, the Land Tribunal after being remanded back the matter for demarcation of the disputed land between the parties by the High Court, allotted southern half portion to Parwategowda and his family and the Northern half portion to Basanagowda and his family by its order dated 3rd of January, 1985. Against the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority being L.R. Appeal No. 1687 of 1986 which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 14th of September 1987.

4. Against the said judgment and order, the respondents preferred a civil revision petition being CRP No. 5632 of 1987 before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, inter alia, observing that the party prejudiced can approach a civil court to claim exclusive possession of the disputed land. On the basis of such an observation, the respondents thereafter filed a suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of the disputed land being O.S No. 131 of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge, Gadag. The Civil Judge by its judgment decreed the suit holding that it had the jurisdiction to decide as to whether it was a joint family property or an individual property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the civil judge, the appellants herein filed an appeal before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of title and possession, which is




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top