Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
K.T. Venkatappa Since Deceased by his LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Seethappa S/o Muni Anneppa – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 2301 of 2006
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIV Rule 2 – Order 14 Rule 2 – Karnataka Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954 – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Section 132(2), 133, 48-A(5), Land Reforms Act, 1973 – Inams Abolition Act, 1955 – Whether such land is or is not agricultural land – Whether person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of said land from prior – Whether is there any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order – Para 44.
Finding of the court: Court of opinion that trial Judge has not applied his mind and has misdirected himself in only considering aspect of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 132(2) of the Act, but has failed to appreciate contentions raised by plaintiffs with regard to other aspects enumerated in the plaint averments and so also with regard to issue No. 1 by Court itself – Hence, this is a fit case to be remanded back to trial Court for adjudication of matter afresh to consider and decide issues framed by trial Court in detail, notwithstanding the specific aspect of jurisdiction of tribunal in deciding application for grant of occupancy rights as against right already decided by Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition as contended by plaintiffs.
Results: Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
1. This is a plaintiffs’ appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 in O.S. No. 240/1993 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, which came to be dismissed and the same having been confirmed in R.A. No. 170/2002 vide order dated 04.04.2006 by the District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. V, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 130/2 measuring 3 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No. 133/2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas situated at Kowdenahally, Bengaluru South Taluk absolutely belongs to their father Sri. K.T. Venkatappa and that he was in actual possession and enjoyment thereof personally cultivating the land by raising Casurina and Eucalyptus trees therein. The RTC and other revenue records are in the name of their father and at no point of time, he had leased out the said lands to tenants.
3. It is further stated that Kowdenahally village was an Inam Village and pursuant to the abolition of the Inams under the Karnataka Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954 their father Sri. K.T. Venkatappa submitted his claim for registration of his occupancy rights before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. The Spl. Deputy Commissioner, who was competent to adjudicate all such claims regarding such Inam land held an enquiry and passed an order in case bearing No. RC 52/1959-60 and RC No. 172/1963-64 declaring Sri. K.T. Venkatappa as an occupant and Kathedar in respect of aforesaid two lands along with other lands and an endorsement to that effect was issued dated 03.07.1964.
4. It is further stated that after abolition of the Inams and after the re-grant of the occupancy rights in favour of Sri. K.T. Venkatappa his name continuously reflected in Pahani and other revenue records showing that he was in continuous possession and enjoyment and personally cultivating the same as absolute owner by paying kandayam (tax) to the said lands.
5. This being the state of affairs, respondent No. 1 had filed Form No. 7 before respondent No. 3-Land Tribunal for registration of the occupancy rights in his favour claiming that he was a tenant in respect of two parcels of land of Sri. K.T. Venkatappa by claiming that he was a tenant for past 30 years. Father of plaintiffs deceased Sri. K.T. Venkatappa was notified of the same, who had objected to the said application for grant of occupancy rights inter-alia claiming that he was never a tenant and sought for dismissal of the claim made in Form No. 7.
6. On 22.09.1979, respondent No. 3-Land Tribunal passed an order holding that respondent No. 1 was a tenant and registered the occupancy rights in his favour. This fact came to the knowledge of deceased Sri. K.T. Venkatappa, hence, he lodged a complaint before the Police as respondent No. 1 was illegally attempting to trespass into the said land after a lapse of 15 long years. In view of such interference by the respondent No. 1 deceased Sri. K.T. Venkatappa instituted O.S. No. 240/1993 seeking for a declaration to declare the occupancy rights granted to the respondent No. 1 herein by the Land Tribunal as one without proper jurisdiction and same to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs.
7. On receipt of notice in the said original suit, the respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1 filed his written statement, pursuant to which on the basis of the pleadings seven issues came to be framed by the trial Court. Issue No. 3 framed by the trial Court pertains to the maintainability of the suit in view of the contentions raised by defendant No. 1 therein. On an application made by respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1 to treat Issue No. 3 as preliminary issue, on consideration, it came to be rejected by the trial Court, which was challenged before this Court in CRP No. 2366/2000 and the same came to be
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
