Tenancy rights under the Land Reforms Act are heritable, and properties retained joint status despite claims of self-acquisition; prior family admissions regarding property division supported ongoing joint ownership.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. This matter is listed for consideration of I.As’ and those IAs’ are allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insisted this Court to hear the matter on merits since the FDP is filed before the Trial Court and date is fixed for the consideration tomorrow and hence this Court heard the matter on merits also regarding admission of the second appeal.

2. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the schedule property in O.S.No.542/2012 contended that one Sannegowda was the propositus of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff Nos.3 to 6 and defendants are the children of said Sannegowda and plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 are the wives of other two sons of Sannegowda who are no more, the said Sannegowda had 8 children out of which six sons and 2 daughters. The said Sannegowda died and his wife Puttamma also died long back and the said Sannegowda was a tenant in respect of suit schedule properties under the landlord Sri.Krishnashetty and Smt.Jayalakshmama and has filed the declaration claiming occupancy rights under the provisions of LAND REFORMS ACT and before grant of occupancy rights, the said Sannegowda died and plaintiffs and defendants being the legal heirs of the said Sannegowda are cultivating the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs have authorized the defendants to appear before the concerned authority and represent the case for the sake of convenience. As such defendant No.1 on behalf of his family appeared before the concerned authority and the authorized officer and the Deputy Commissioner for Tenancy claims by their order dated 21.09.2011 granted the suit schedule land under Section 77 of the Land Reform Act in the name of the first defendant.

3. It is also contented that properties were granted in the name of the 1^st defendant and the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have also got right over the suit schedule properties as their father was tenant in respect of the suit schedule property and filed declaration seeking occupancy rights. Hence the plaintiff contend that they have equal rights in the suit schedule properties. But, the 1^st defendant with malafide intention got the katha changed into his name in respect of suit schedule property attempting to alienate the suit schedule property to the 3^rd parties and when the demand was made for the partition and separate possession of their share in respect of the suit schedule properties by causing legal notice, he did not come forward to give share and hence filed the suit. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and got amended the written statement during the trial. The defendant No. 1 has admitted the relationship between the parties to the suit, but he contend that his father died on 15.09.1993 and prior to death of his father, his children were separated and resided separately by taking their share in the properties and their marriage was performed prior to the death of his father. Hence the defendant No.1 has contended that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over suit schedule property. Further contended that application seeking occupancy rights and after 6 to 7 years from the date of death of his father on 08.01.1999, he filed an application in respect of schedule properties seeking occupancy rights on 21.09.2011, the concerned authority has granted the same in respect of the suit schedule properties and hence he contended that it is his self acquired properties and the