( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 against the decree passed by the II Addl Civil Judge, Belgaum in CA 227 of 1964 reversing the decree passed by the Addl Munsiff, Chikodi in RCS. 156 of 1962.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT 1 instituted tha suit on i4-6-1962 for a declaration that the sale transaction evidenced by Ex 93 executed on 2-1-1957 by the predecessor of defendants 3 to 8 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff; and for a cancellation of the entries made in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants in the record of rights showing them es kabjedars of the suit lands.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that he is the tenant of the suit lands since several decades and that therefore, his landlord viz. , the predecessor of defendents 3 to 8 could not have sold the suit lands to defendants 1 and 2 on 2-1-1957 without offering the suit lands for sale to him (the plaintiff) - the tenant in possession of the suit lands-as required by S 64 of tha BTAL act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the 'act' ). The case of the plaintiff further is that the sale in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is invalid as provided in S 64 of the Act and es the entries in the record of rights have been made in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants on the strength of the sale 'deed, those entries in the record of rights may be directed to be canoslled.

( 4 ) THA suit was resisted principally by defendants 1 and 2 on various grounds. They contended that the plaintiff was not the tenant of the suit lands and that therefore, the sale in thsir favour is not hit by the provisions of S 64 of the Act. They further contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 5 ) THE learned Munsiff held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant any of the prayers of the plaintiff and consequently dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further held that tha plaintiff was the tenant of the suit lands on the date when Ex. 93 was executed and that as the landlord did not offer the suit lands for sale to tha plaintiff as required by S 64 of the Act, the sale in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants is invalid under sub-sec (8) of S. 64 of the Act. The learned Civil judge also held that 1he Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant a decree for cancellation of the entries made in the record of rights. Consequently the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayod for. Hence this second appeal by defendants 1 and 2.

( 6 ) SRI G. D. Shirgurkar, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Civil Judge committed an error of law in taking the view that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for a declaration that the sale by the predecessor of defendants 3 to 8 in favour of defendsnts 1 and 2 is invalid on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of S. 64 of the Act.

( 7 ) SEC. 64 of the Act regulates the sale of agricultural lands. When a landlord intends to sell an agricultural land, he is required to get the reasonable price of the same determined in accordance with sub-sec (1)of s 64 of the Act. After the reasonable price is so determined, the landlord is required to simultaneously offer the agricultural land to the tenant In actual possession thereof and to, all persons and bodies mentioned in the priority list as per the provisions of sub-sec (2) of Sec. 64. Within one month, the persons to whom the offer is made are required to intimate the landlord their willingness to purchase the land as required by sub-sec (3) of S 64 The person having the highest priority in the order of the priority list who has expressed his Willingness to purchase the lam has to be offered the land for sale as required under sub-sec (4) of S. 64 of the act. The person to whom the land so offered has to pay the amount' fixed bv the Tribunal within the prescribed petriod as required under sub-see (5)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document