Back
High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Gulbarga)
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
Channabasappa
Versus
The Land Tribunal, Chincholi, Gulbarga District
Writ Petition No.40161 of 2008 (GM—CPC)
Decided on : 25-02-2009
Jurisdiction - Agricultural Land - Interpretation of Section 133 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a defendant in a suit for permanent injunction regarding agricultural land, filed a writ petition questioning the proceedings in the suit and seeking to prohibit the Civil Court from proceeding further.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit for permanent injunction was solely focused on the plaintiff's possession of the land, and the issue of tenancy was being addressed separately by the Land Tribunal. The Court cited the law laid down by a Division Bench, emphasizing that the only question for decision in such a suit is the plaintiff's possession of the land on the date of the suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and decide the suit for permanent injunction was fettered by sub-section (2) of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the law and precedent to establish that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not fettered by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act in the context of the suit for permanent injunction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be without merit and was accordingly rejected.
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
Petitioner arraigned as defendant in O.S. No. 67/2005, for permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land has filed this petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court calling in question the proceeding in the suit pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chincholi and to prohibit the Civil Court from proceeding further in the suit.
2. Admittedly, the suit is one for permanent injunction on the allegation that the plaintiffs lawful possession of the suit lands is sought to be interfered with by the defendant. The only question that arising for decision making in the said suit is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, on the date of suit and not as to tenancy set up by the defendant. Even according to the petitioner/defendant that issue as to tenancy is subject-matter of proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Chincholi. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that sub-section (2) of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is a fetter on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and decide O.S. No. 67/2005. I say so in the light of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Tarabai Vs. Krishna Pandurang Power reported in 1971 Kar. L.J. 216. The Division Bench in the said order observe thus:
"The suit as already stated, is one for permanent injunction on the allegation that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit lands and that the defendant is unlawfully interfering with her possession. In such a suit the only question that arise for decision is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit. If the plaintiff is able to establish that fact, then, she is entitled to a decree for injunction. In such a suit, no issue regarding plea of the tenancy set up by the defendant arising for decision."
In the result this writ petition is without merit and is accordingly rejected.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
