The main legal point established is that the Land Tribunal has the authority to decide questions related to leasehold rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff in OS. 11 /1972 on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC, haveri is the appellant in this appeal. He instituted the said suit for the permanent injunction aganinst the defendants, respondents herein, restraining them from interfering with his possession of the three suit lands bearing RS. Nos. 134 and 135 of Kittur village and RS. No. 109 in Maidar village in Haveri Taluk, Dharwar District. The facts of the case briefly are these There was one Mudakappa, who died several years ago leaving behind him four sons by name : Virupaxappa, Rudrappa (defendant-l) chinnappa (Defendant-2) and Basappa. In the year 1963 there was a partition in the said family amongst the four sons. At that partition, the properties belonging to the family were divided. The plaintiff's case was that the three lands in question, which were being cultivated by his father Virupaxappa as a sole lessee were not the subject matter of partition and that on his (Virupaxappa's) death he inherited the lease-hold rights in the said lands. He claimed that defendants 1 and 2 and Fakiravva (defendant-3) the widow of their brother Basappa had no right to interfere with his exclusive possession of the suit lands and was therefore entitled to an injunction as prayed for against them.

( 2 ) THE defendants pleaded that the lease-hold rights in the suit lands originally belonged to the joint family consisting of the four sons of Mudakappa but were not divided amongst them at the partition which took place in the year 1953, since all the members of the family agreed to continue to enjoy the same jointly as lessees. They also pleaded that on the date of the suit they were in possession of the suit lands as joint lessees along with the plaintiff and that no decree for injunction could be passed against them. It was however, admitted by both the parties that the lease in question commenced more than 40 years ago.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues, viz. , (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in exclusive possession of suit property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants had interfered with his possession? and (3) To what reliefs the parties are entitled?

( 4 ) AT the conclusion of the trial, the learned Munsiff recorded findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the suit with costs after holding that the lands in question were being enjoyed by all the members of the family as lessees.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Haveri in RA. 4)1974. The learned civil Judge, passed an order d|. 26-2-1975 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanding the case to it to dispose of the same in accordance with Sec-133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since he was of the opinion that the question whether the appellant was exclusively entitled to the lease-hold rights or whether the appellant and respondents were jointly entitled to the same on the ground that the lease-hold rights were originally held by the joint family, was a question which could be decided only by the Land Tribunal constituted under the Act and that the decision in the suit depended upon the finding to be recorded by the Land tribunal on that question. Aggrieved by the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed this miscellaneous second appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (u) of the CPC. The above appeal first came up for disposal before a single Judge and on a reference made by him it has come up before us for disposal.

( 6 ) IT has to be mentioned at this stage that after the decision was given by the Trial Court, the Act was amended by Karnataka Act 1 of 1974. By the said amending Act, which came into force on 1-3-1974 the original Section 44 of the Act was substituted by the new section 44 by providing that all lands held by or in the