The court established that the claim under the certain inams abolition act was not available to the petitioner and that Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act had no application to the facts of the case.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT 3 (d) in os 438/1971 and os 439/1971, is the petitioner. Os 438/1971 is filed by b. m. mahadevappa against krishnasimha and six others for declaration of title and injunction, in the alternative, if it is found that he is not in possession, for possession in respect of S. Nos. 158/1, 158/3,159/1, 159/3, 159/4,160/1, 160/3 and 160/4 of iggali village. Os 439/1971, is filed by b. m. chikkaputtappa (brother of the above mentioned plaintiff) against the above defendants for similar reliefs in lands S. Nos. 163/1, 163/2, 163/3, 162/1, 162/2, 162/3 and. 62/4 of the same village. The admitted relationship of defendants as per the geneology is as follows: sharadabayamma having expired, her three sons (d4 to d6) and four other daughters are brought on record as 2 (a) to 2 (h ). Iggali village in nanjangud taluk was a jodi inam. With the coming into force Mysore (personal and miscellaneous) inams abolition Act, personal inams and certain miscellaneous inams in the erstwhile state of Mysore came to be abolished on dates notified under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said act. By notification No. Rd3 min 58, dated 22-9-1958, the Provisions of the Act, other then sections 2, 27, 38 and 40 were applicable to jodi iggali village in nanjangud taluk on 2nd october, 1958. The effect was on 2-10-1958, the village where the suit lands are situated, ceased to be a jodi village and it vested in the state. Ex. P. 31, dated 22nd may, 1965, evidences the fact that S. Nos. 158/1, 159/3, 160/3, 158/3, 159/1, 160/4, 159/4 and 160/1 of the jodi iggali village are registered in the name of mahadevappa. Similarly S. Nos. 162/1, 162/2, 162/3,163/1, 163/2, 163/3 and 162/4 are registered in the name of chikkaputtappa (vide Annexure respondent 3 ). Claim application of sharadabayamma in respect of S. Nos. 158/1, 158/3, 159/1, 159/3, 159/4, 160/1, 160/3, 160/4, 162/1, 162/2, 162/3, 162/4,163/1, 163/2 and 163/3, was rejected by the special deputy commissioner, inam abolition, mysore, vide his order dated 30-7-1962 (ex. P. 34 ). As against this Order, sharadabayamma filed appeal 430/63, before Karnataka revenue appellate tribunal. The members of k. r. a. t. dismissed the appeal on 25-2-1965 (ex. P. 35 ). Thus, these orders have become final. The present suits are filed on 30th july, 1971. Revision petitioners is brought on record as legal representative of above referred sharadabayamma. In her additional written statement filed on 10-12-1986, she contested the claim of plaintiff, having been registered as kadim tenant, as "not correct and true". She did not claim any right in herself, she could not do so in view of the above proceedings. The petitioner filed his written statement on 10-4-1989. He sought amendment which is allowed on 11-9-1989, and amendment is incorporated in the written statement. His defence after amendment is: "as the suit lands are inam lands this defendant along with his three brothers are the kadim tenants of suit lands have filed an application before the land reforms tribunal, nanjangud taluk, nanjangud in irf No. (ina)1 of 1986-87 seeking occupancy rights over the said land. The said application is even now pending before the land tribunal. Hence this court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit but has to wait till disposal of the pending proceedings before the land tribunal. " In the suit there is no issue regarding defendant's "kadim" tenancy. At one stage it was contended that the court should have referred the issue of tenancy to land tribunal. That contention was rejected. In CRP Nos. 4643 and 4644/1989, the order of trial court was challenged. Dismissing the crps. , I observed "the only plea taken by the petitioners in the written statement was that since the matter is pending before the tribunal, civil court had no jurisdiction. It was further stated if the issue of tenancy arises, he can make a request to the court to refer that issue to tribunal. " Even now there is no issue regarding t