The Inams Abolition Act attaches finality to the orders granting registration of occupancy rights, implying the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil Courts. The plaintiff's suit for declaration and correction of entries in the Record of Rights was maintainable under the proviso to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by defendant-1 against the judgment and decree dated June 14, 1972 made in O. S. No. 12 of 1968, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, bangalore.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are these : a small plot of land measuring 1 acero 13 guntas in S. No. 139/2 described in the plaint as schedule 'a' is the subject matter of the litigation. It appears to be a valuable piece of land and perhaps the only asset of the plaintiff. It is situated near Koramangala Layout in Bangalore City. It lies adjacent to Bangalore-Hosur Road, the life-line between Bangalore and Madras. It is located amidst big factories, colleges, hospitals and residential buildings.

( 3 ) THERE is a triangular fight for the suit land. Plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession of that land and he traces his title as follows : dodda Annaiah Reddy and Chikka Annaiah Reddy were two of his predecessors. They were brothers. They were members of a Joint Hindu Family. Chikka Annaiah Reddy died leaving behind his son Pillappa. The family owned among other lands, S. No. 139 of Kormangala village measur-ing 8 acres 23 guntas On March 4, 1920, there was a parti-tion in the family between the two branches of family represented by Dodda Annaiah Reddy and Pillappa. That partition was evidenced by a registered deed Ex. P-8. In the said partition, northern half was alotted to pillappa's branch and southern half was allotted to Dodda Annaiah's branch. In 1943, there was a further parttiion in the branch of family of Dodda Annaiah. It is evidenced by Ex. P-7, dated march 15, 1943. One of the properties included in that partition was No. 139, measuring 4 acres 20 guntas. That was the very property allotted to that branch under Ex. P-8. Although the deed of partition Ex. P-7 recited that the properties of the branch family were equally divided among five sons of Dodda Annaiah, S, No. 139 measuring 4 acres 20 Gs. was, however, shared only by four of his sons. That is clear from the schedule of properties given to each of those four sons,

( 4 ) IN 1937, for the first time, the Record of Rights and Survey Settlement were introduced. While preparing the survey settlement, two hissas in S. No. 139 given to Dodda Annaiah and Pillappa were measured and the measurements were recorded in the Hissa Tippani and Atlas (Exs. P-l and p-2 ). Northern portion was given the Hissa No. 139/1 and southern portion was given the Hissa no. 139/2 and they were so recorded in Exs. P-l and P-2. It was found that S. No. 139/1 measured 3 acres 36 guntas and S. No. 139/2 measured 4 acres 27 guntas. But, due to inadvertence, the authorities in entering the names of the occupants of the sub-divisions apparently committed mistake. Pillappa was shown to be the occupant of S. No. 139/2 and dodda Annaiah and his sons were shown to be the occupants of S. No. 139/1. This mistake was not noticed by the occupants or the authorities concerned and it remained and continued for years after years. Notwithstanding that mistake in revenue and survey records, the parties, however, continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the area which really belonged to them.

( 5 ) THE Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (called short as "inam abolition Act") was brought into force. Under that Act all personal and miscellaneous inams were abolished and the inam lands stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The Act conferred right on parties to apply for registration of occupancy right before the Special Deputy commissioner in respect of their holdings. So, the father of plaintiff applied for registration of occupancy right in respect of S. No, 1391/1 measuring 38 guntas. His other three brothers also claimed similar rights in respect of similar extents. The Special Deputy Commissioner registered all of them as 'kadim' tenants in respect of the extents claimed by them. Gullamma, the widow of pillappa, asked for registration of occu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document