The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant cannot bequeath the property in favor of a third person, and the legal heirs will inherit the right of tenancy as tenancy is heritable.

M.P. Chinnappa, J.—Heard the learned Advocates Smt. Sona Vakkund and Sri M.B. Naragund for the Petitioner and Sri Patil and Patil for Respondents-3 to 6. Sri M. Ramaiah, Additional Government Advocate for R-1 and R-2.

2. The undisputed facts are that one Paragouda was the tenant. He had no issues. He died on 20.3.1964 leaving behind his wife. During his life time he executed a Will in favour of the husbands of Respondents 3 to 5 his nephews. After his death, the Petitioner filed O.S. 89 of 1965 for possession of the property which came to be dismissed. As against that he preferred Regular Appeal 31 of 1967 which also came to be dismissed. He questioned that order in R.S.A. 708 of 1970 and this Court was pleased to remand the matter to the trial Court to raise an issue in regard to tenancy and to refer the matter to the Land Tribunal for its findings. Thereafter, the husband of the 3rd Respondent filed Form No. 7 on 31.7.1976 and the Tribunal allowed that application. That order was questioned in W.P. 8872 of 1976 and this Court was pleased to remand the matter to consider the question whether the tenant can execute a Will. However, the Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of the applicant. That order was yet again questioned before the land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur, in LRA No. 11 of 1989 and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the tribunal, Jamkhandi in KLR.SR.4/TBC dated 30.11.1988 vide its order dated 27.10.1989. Being aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner/landlord preferred this petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the appellate authority has given two reasons to dismiss the petition and those two reasons are unsustainable. The 1st reason is that the suit filed by the Petitioner for resumption of land came to be dismissed. Therefore, there is presumption that the Respondent is in possession of the property. In the records maintained in regard to the nature of cultivation in the suits filed by the Petitioner and also other particulars are mentioned. It also discloses the names of the husbands of R3 to R5 which clearly disclose that they are cultivating the property. This documentary evidence coupled with the fact that the suit filed by the Petitioner to resume the land which came to be dismissed also indicates that the husbands of the Respondents 3 to 5 were cultivating the property. As stated above, it is also not in dispute that the Respondents 3 to 5 are in possession of the entire area and they are cultivating the property. This documentary evidence coupled with the fact that the suit filed by the Petitioner to resume the land which came to be dismissed also indicates that the husbands of the Respondents 3 to 5 were cultivating the property. As stated above, it is also not in dispute that the Respondents 3 to 5 are in possession of the entire area and they are cultivating the property. Thus, they are lawfully cultivating the property right from the death of the deceased Paregouda who died in the year 1964. This fact is not in dispute. At every point of time, the attempt of the Petitioner to dislodge them from the property also failed. His contention that the Respondents 3 to 5 are in possession of the property by virtue of the will cannot be accepted in view of the fact that right from 1964 they have been in possession of the property. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, they are deemed tenants of the Petitioner.

4. It is no doubt true that that Paregouda has executed a will bequeathing his right in favour of his nephews who are the husbands of Respondents 3 to 5. Even assuming that the will cannot give any right, the long standing uninterrupted possession of the husbands of Respondents 3 to 5 and after their death, Respondents 3 to 5 are in possession of the property, the will said to have been executed does not have any value in this case.

5. In Timmakka Kom Venkanna Naik Vs. L