P. KRISHNA MOORTHY, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The suit is filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties which is 3. 45 acres in Sy. No. 194 of Bemblur village. The allegation in the plaint is, that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the above lands and that it was purchased under a sale deed dated 23-5-1986 from one T. K. Doddappa and T. K. Thammaiah who are the children of late Komari Gowda, who died in 1980. The defendants attempted to trespass on the plaint schedule property on 22-7-1987 and accordingly, a suit was instituted for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession.

( 2 ) THE defendants filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs title and possession. According to them, the first defendant and his predecessor-in-title were cultivating about 1 acre of land which belongs to a temple known as 'benathamma and Kalle Devaru Temple' for more than 150 years as tenants. Accordingly, the claim of the defendants is, that they are in possession of 1 acre of land of the temple as a tenant. The defendants obtained occupancy rights under the Karnataka land Reforms Act, in respect of this land, on 22-10-1975 but the survey number was wrongly mentioned as Sy. No. 195. Accordingly, they filed an application for correction before the land tribunal in 1987. It was rejected on 27-11-1987 and confirmed by the appellate authority on 31-1-1988. Against these orders, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 1965 of 1988 challenging the orders. It was contended that, in the light of the fact that the defendants are claiming tenancy rights over the property, the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction and that the matter should be referred to the land tribunal before deciding the question of tenancy under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

( 3 ) THE trial court after consideration of the entire matter, over ruled the contention of the defendants and granted a temporary injunction as prayed for in favour of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court also confirmed the order of temporary injunction after holding that it is not necessary to refer the question of tenancy to the land tribunal in this case.

( 4 ) WHILE this civil revision petition was pending before this Court, Writ Petition No. 1965 of 1988 filed against the refusal of the land tribunal to correct the survey number came up for consideration and by an order dated 3-1-1994, the orders of the land tribunal as also the appellate authority were set aside and the tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter regarding correct survey number in regard to the claim made by the defendants.

( 5 ) IN the light of the above order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the question of tenancy claimed by the defendants being the subject-matter of a proceeding before the land tribunal, the civil court has no jurisdiction to deal with that question. He also contended that, at any rate, under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, the question of tenancy should have been referred to the land tribunal and in the meanwhile, the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of temporary injunction. Learned counsel- for the revision petitioners also contended that, even otherwise, no prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiffs for the grant of temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the suit being for permanent injunction, the question of tenancy never arises as the court is concerned primarily only with the plaintiffs possession and accordingly, the suit need not be referred to the land tribunal and the civil court retains its jurisdiction. It was furthe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document