Back
2005 Supreme(Kar) 176
Karnataka High Court
RATI alias VARIJA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 03-10-05
W.P. : 24391 of 1997
K.Chandrakantha Ariga, R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH
Headnote:Jurisdiciton of Civil Court
KARNATAKA CIVIL COURTS ACT, 1964
Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Applications or occupancy rights by heirs of deceased tenant -Jurisdiction of civil court after decision of Tribunal.
[S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: If the Tribunal records a finding one way or the other, then the said finding becomes final subject to challenge under the Act.
Cases Referred: (2000) 9 SCC 272.
Followed: ILR 2004 Kar 3355; ILR 2005 Kar 568; 1987 (I) Kar. L. J. 1; AIR 1994 SC 1190.
Conferment of occupancy rights based on entries in revenue records
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 - Section 127 - Conferment of occupancy rights based on entries in revenue records - Rival claims of heirs of tenant -Jurisdiction of civil court.
[S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: If the Tribunal records a finding one way or the other, then the said finding becomes final subject to challenge under the Act.
Inheritance of tenancy rights - KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 24 - Inheritance of tenancy rights -Tenancy rights are heritable.
[S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: When a tenant dies, the landlord shall be deemed to have continued the tenancy to the heirs of such tenant on the same terms and conditions on which such tenant was holding at the time of his death, which is evident from Section 24 of the Act.
Cases Referred: (2000) 9 SCC 272.
Followed: ILR 2004 Kar 3355; ILR 2005 Kar 568; 1987 (I) Kar. L. J. 1; AIR 1994 SC 1190.816
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 24 -Jurisdiction of civil court -Children of deceased tenant filing applications for conferment of occupancy rights -If tribunals confers occupancy rights on one applicant, then the jurisdiction of civil court is ousted jurisdiction when comes to fore.
Rival claims son and daughter - KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 48 A -Rival claims son and daughter of deceased tenant independently claiming occupancy rights -Tribunal to club the applications.
[S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: If both the sons and daughters of the deceased tenant apply for grant of occupancy right, the Tribunal has to club the applications of the rival claimants, consider them and decide the person entitled to be registered as an occupant and pass orders accordingly.
Claim against spouse - KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 48 A - Claim against spouse - A living spouse cannot claim occupancy rights as a tenant of other living spouse.
[S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: It is settled that a living spouse cannot claim conferment of occupancy right as a tenant of other living spouse in respect of agricultural land under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961. A Division Bench of this Court in case of SMT. A. JAIAJAKSHI D. ALWA S CASE [1987 (1) Kar. L. J. 1 (DB)] has held that the Karnataka Land Reforms Act does not recognise a tenancy between a husband and wife and vice-versa though the common law or other laws may recognise the same.
Suit for partition
PARTITION - Suit for -Rival claims by heirs of tenant -Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of one claimant based on entries in revenue records and possession -Suit for partition by other party -Civil court has jurisdiction.
[S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: tenancy is conferred on the 3rd respondent as per the order dated Annexure D on the basis of the revenue records and his possession and cultivation of the Land. The Land Tribunal has not recorded a finding that the tenancy exclusively belongs to him. The petitioner has made a claim on the ground that she is a legal representative of P . Her application was dismissed on a technical ground that she cannot claim tenancy under her husband. Therefore, petitioner has filed a suit for partition of the properties of P including the tenanted lands. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide this issue because the Civil Court is not called upon to decide as to who is the tenant as the same question is already decided by the Land Tribunal. The Civil Court is called upon to decide as to whether the tenancy right granted in favour of a person is his self acquisition or it belonged to his predecessor and that other heirs have a share in said property. The Civil Court is competent to go into this question.
Cases Referred: (2000) 9 SCC 272.
Followed: ILR 2004 Kar 3355; ILR 2005 Kar 568; 1987 (I) Kar. L. J. 1; AIR 1994 SC 1190.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question, the orders dated 24-12-1976 (Annexures-C and D respectively) passed by the Land tribunal, Karkala, whereby, the petitioner's application seeking grant of occupancy right was rejected and the application of the 3rd respondent was allowed.
( 2 ) THE petitioner and the 3rd respondent are the children of late Sri parameshwara Shervegara. Parameshwara Shervegara was the tenant of the lands in question. The 4th respondent purchased the said lands from its previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 23-6-1959. Parameshwara Shervegara had taken the lands from the 4th respondent on lease on 4-10-1959. Parameshwara Shervegara died prior to 1-3-1974. The petitioner married 4th respondent, the owner of the properties in question.
( 3 ) AFTER coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by Act 1 of 1974, the petitioner filed an application in Form 7 for grant of occupancy right in respect of the lands in question as a legal representative of the deceased Parameshwara Shervegara, her father. Likewise, her brother, the 3rd respondent also made a similar application for grant of occupancy right in respect of the lands in question. The Land Tribunal, by the order dated 24-12-1976 (Annexure-C) rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that she cannot claim tenancy under her husband. The application of the 3rd respondent was allowed and occupancy right was granted in his favour in terms of the order dated 24-12-1976 (Annexure-D ).
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner filed a suit in O. S. No. 355 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Karkala for partition and separate possession of half share in the properties of her father including the tenanted lands. In the said suit, the 3rd respondent has taken up a contention that the Land Tribunal, has granted occupancy right exclusively to him in respect of the properties in question and that the petitioner is not entitled to any share. In this circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders impugned.
( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
( 6 ) SRI R. V. Jayaprakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Land Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of occupancy right and granting occupancy right of the said lands exclusively in favour of the 3rd respondent. It is his further submission that the father of the petitioner was a tenant of the lands in question and after his death, the petitioner and 3rd respondent being the heirs, are entitled for equal share. Placing reliance on Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, it is urged that the rights of the tenants are heritable and that after the death of their father, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, are holding the lands on the same terms and conditions on which their father was holding at the time of his death. Therefore, the Land Tribunal ought to have granted occupancy right to an extent of 50% in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that since the Land Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into the said question in the suit filed by the petitioner for partition of the properties of late Parameshwara Shervegara. He has relied on the decision of Apex court in case of Balawwa and Another v Hasanabi and Others , the decisions of this Court in case of Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar and others v Smt. Shantabai Ramachandra Kuduchakar and Others and doddamma v Muniyamma and Others.
( 7 ) PER contra, Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent argues that the Land Tribunal is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner, since she cannot be a tenant under respondent 4 who is her husband. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of this Court in the c
