N. D. VENKATESH, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 143 of 1975 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Haveri, has preferred this petition against an interlocutory order dated 12. 9. 77 of the Munsiff passed on I. A. I.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS had filed that application (I. A. I.) under Or XIV Rule 5 C. P. C. , requesting the court to raise an additional issue as mentioned therein, and also to refer that issue to an appropriate authority constituted under the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) for a finding and to proceed with the suit further after receiving that finding and in the light of the same. The munsiff has allowed I. A. I.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff's suit is ior specific performance 01 an agreement said to have been entered into with him by the 1st defendant agreeing to sell an a agricultural land. One of the contentions raised in the written state ment filed by the defendants is that the plaintiff is neither an agriculturist nor an agricultural labourer and as such was not entitled to purchase an agricultural land as provided in S. 80 of the Act. According to them the court below had not raised a specific issue on this aspect of their defence and, therefore, they had filed I. As I and IV.

( 4 ) IN i. A. IV they sought the raising of an additional issue, and the additional issue being whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer. In I. A. I their request was to refer this issue to the authority constituted under the Act since according to them the said issue cannot be tried in the civil court and requires to be referred to that authority.

( 5 ) THE learned Munsiff allowed both the I. As and directed that the 3rd additional issue, referred to above, be referred to the competent authority, competent to try that issue under the act. According to him that was necessary in order to know as to whether the agreement of sale was legal and specific performance could be granted.

( 6 ) IT may be- noted that there was no serious objection to I. A. IV. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he had no objections to the additional issue raised by the Munsiff, he had objections for the court referring the third additional issue to the competent authority under the Act. According to him there was no provision in the Act to refer such an issue. I am inclined to agree with him.

( 7 ) S. 80 of the Act reads as follows:"transfers to non-agriculturists barred: (1) (a) No sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a civil court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue or for sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue) gift or exchange or lease of any land or interest therein, or (b) no mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgagee, shall be valid in favour of a person- (i) who is not an agriculturist, or (ii) who being an agriculturist holds as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land which exceeds the limit specified in section 63 or 64 or (iii) who is not an agricultural labourer; or (iv) who is disentitled under section 79a or section 79b to acquire or hold any land: provided that the Assistant Commissioner authorised by the State government in this behalf in respect of any area may grant permission for such sale, gift, or exchange to enable a person either than a person disentitled to acquire or hold land under section 79a or section 79b who bpna fide intends taking up agriculture to acquire land on such conditions as may be prescribed in addition to the following conditions namely: - (1) that the transferee takes up agriculture within one year from the date of acquisition of land, and (ii that if the transferee gives up agriculture within five years, the land shall vest in the State government, subject to payment to him of an amount equal to eight limes the net annual income of the land or where the land has been purchased the price paid for the land, if such price is less than eight time

Click Here to Read the rest of this document