The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of joint family tenancy and the power of the Tribunal to decide who is a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13. 9. 1977, passed in W. P. No. 8050 of 1977, which had been preferred by the appellants and came to be dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing. In the said writ petition, the order dated 29. 6. 1977, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, in LRT. 832-75-76, was sought to be quashed.

( 2 ) AS the writ petition has been dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing, we do not consider it absolutely necessary to go into the actual reasons put forth in the impugned order. We deem it just and appropriate to go to the considered order of the land Tribunal itself, in exercise of the appellate powers. The order of the Tribunal which is at Ext. 'a', discloses that respondent-1-Manjappa Hengsu filed Form no. 7, informing the land Tribunal that the lands in question are the leasehold lands of herself, the appellants, respondents 2, 6, 7. She requested that as all of them are tenants, of the lands in question, all of them be registered as occupants.

( 3 ) MEMORANDUM of Writ petition shows the relationship amongst these persons in paragraph 2. Paragraph 4 of the memorandum of writ petition makes out that appellant 1- petitioner-1 claimed before the land tribunal, that he be registered as occupant of two lands in Kannur village and 7 lands of Alpe Village and that appellant-2' claimed that he should be registered as an occupant in respect of the remaining lands. In other words, the claim of the appellants was for registration as occupants in favour of themselves, to the exclusion of respondents namely, respondents-1, 2, 6 and 7. The order of the Tribunal discloses that the Tribunal recorded statements of appellant-1 and others including the landlord and that the landlord stated that all the parties before the Tribunal who was claimed registration of occupancy rights in their favour, were his tenants. It is on consideration of these facts and circumstances and after verifying the revenue records, the tribunal has passed the order that the appellants and respondents are to be registered as occupants of these lands.

( 4 ) IT is to be noticed, that in Form No. 7 submitted by appellant-1, he had not claimed occupancy rights over lands S. No. measuring 1 acre 43 cents, 51-7 measuring 27 cents, and 52-2 measuring 1 acre 55 cents of Alke village; but by the impugned order of the Tribunal, he has been granted occupancy rights along with others over these lands. In other words, he got certain advantage, in addition to what he had claimed in Form No. 7.

( 5 ) IT is clear on the face of the order of the Tribunal, that the Tribunal has concluded that all these persons constituted 'joint family and the tenancy is joint family tenancy, in view of the fact that Mundappa poojary whose widow is respondent-1 and whose sons are the appellants and respondent-2 and whose daughters are respondents 6 and 7 and the remaining are grand daughters or the original tenants undisputedly. The fact that Mundappa Poojary father of the appellants or the tenant held leasehold right under the landlord and the whole family enjoyed that right is not seriously in dispute before us.

( 6 ) SRI A. Keshav Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that according to the appellants they were the only persons who were in actual possession and cultivating the lands in question as put forth by them in their form No. 7 and tnerefore the Tribunal ought to have registered them only as occupants in respect of the areas of lands cultivated by them, to the exclusion of any other respondent.

( 7 ) NOWHERE have the appellants stated anything about there being or there not being joint family consisting of themselves, respondent-1, respondent-2 and others. They have neither asserted about its existence nor denied. The hard fact remains that respondent-1 had claimed occupancy rights before the Tribunal unnaturally as the acquisition of lease-hold right by Mundappa Poojary, the father of appellants a