K. A. SWAMI, ACTG. C. J.

( 1 ) R. S. A. No. 737 of 1977 is preferred against the decree dated 23-4-1977 passed in R. A. No. 243 of 1972 and R. A. No. 253 of 1972 by the IV Additional civil Judge, Belgaum partly affirming and partly reversing the decree dated 31-8-1972 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Athani, in O. S. No. 94 of 1969.

( 2 ) THE appellants are defendants 1 to 3 and respondents 1 to 3 are plaintiffs 1 to 3, and respondent 4 is defendant No. 4.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties bearing S. No. 119/a/2 measuring 14 acres assessed at Rs. 37. 24, S. No. 156/a/2-3 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas assessed at Rs. 6. 72 and S. No. 119 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas assessed at Rs.

( 4 ) 39 and the house bearing V. P. C. No. 378 situated at Shegunshi village, Athani Taluk. 4. This second appeal is referred to a Division Bench on the ground that the decision in Chandrabai and Others v Laxmibai and Another, R. F. A. No. 42 of 1972, DD: 19-6-1974 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court requires to be reconsidered.

( 5 ) IN Smt. Chandra Bai's case, a Division Bench of this Court has held that a suit for partition in respect of the properties governed by the Karnataka Village offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') before the regrant is premature. The Division Bench has observed thus:"it is common case of the parties that the suit lands have not been regranted under Section 5 of the Act. The village office to which the Watan appertains has been abolished. The lands have been resumed and vested in the Government under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. When regrant is made under Section 5 of the Act to the holder of the village office, the lands will be held on ryotwari tenure. Until the regrant is made, the holder of the village office has merely a right to obtain regrant subject to the conditions specified in Section 5. We asked the learned counsel for the appellants as to how the plaintiffs can seek the relief of partition of the suit properties before regrant is obtained from the Government. The learned counsel was unable to give any satisfactory reply in this regard. He, however, submitted that the plaintiffs may be granted a declaration that they arc members of a joint family and are entitled to regrant of the suit properties. . . . . . . Since the Scheme of the Act is also the same as the Watans Abolition act, a regrant of the land resumed under Section 4 to the holder of the village office has to be regarded as compensation to the holder of the village office. Until the lands are regranted to the holder of the village office, the plaintiffs derive no title, assuming that the Watan was family properly which was impartible until its abolition. It is too premature for the plaintiffs to institute a suit for partition before regrant is obtained by the holder of the village office. . . "

( 6 ) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing before this Bench, on 8-8-1990, we took a view that it was not necessary to decide the correctness of the view taken in Chandra Bai's case because the regrant proceedings were at a final stage. Therefore, we postponed the hearing of the appeal for a period of six months and directed the Registry of this Court to despatch all the records pertaining to regrant proceedings which were submitted by the Tahsildar, Athani to the court of the Munsiff, to enable the Tahsildar, Athani to decide the regrant proceedings within 4 months from 24-9-1990 and submit the records along with his order to this Court within two weeks thereafter. The parties were directed to appear before the Tahsildar, Athani on 24-9-1990.

( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Tahsildar decided the regrant proceedings. However, anappeal against the order of the Tahsildar was preferred by the plaintiffs in the suit out of which the regular second appeal in question arises, before the District judge, Belgaum, under Section 3 (2) of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document