The court affirmed that a Mulageni tenant cannot alienate rights without consent, and lease termination can occur if rental obligations are breached or if the tenant renounces tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court in O.S.No.64/2009 while seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the Mulageni right of the defendant in respect of the scheduled plot has been duly terminated and they have entitled to get joint vacant possession of the suit schedule property plot after dismantling the building therein and to direct the division of schedule plot into two equal shares by metes and bounds. It is urged that the grandfather of the 2^nd plaintiff i.e., father’s father, late Brahmayya Shetty was the owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property bearing Sy.No.127/5A measuring 0.05 acres situated at Puttur kasaba Village, Puttur Taluk. The late Brahmayya Shetty had created a Mulageni lease in respect of 0.14 acres of land in Sy.No.127/5A in favour of one Gunapala Shetty as per registered document No.l-27/1951 dated 10.01.1951 of Sub-Registrar, Puttur that is marked as document Ex.P.1, the said Gunapala Shetty died in the year 1958, his leasehold rights in the above land was inherited by his Aunt Smt.Chinnamma since he was not having any issues. The Mulageni rights so inherited by her was purchased by the wife of one Varisena Shetty, namely Bharathi Kumari in the year 1960. The said Varisena Shetty is the younger brother of the 1^st plaintiff’s husband and 2^nd plaintiff’s father late Yuvaraj. The husband of the defendant started running a shop in the building situated in the plot on payment of rent in the year 1970. Thereafter, in the year 1975, the defendant purchased Mulageni right in respect of the above plot from the wife of Varisena Shetty, namely Bharathi Kumari, while purchasing the Mulageni right, the defendant deliberately changed the boundary description of the plot and mentioned the wrong boundaries quite contrary to the earlier Mulageni deed, at any rate, the terms of the earlier Mulageni deed dated 10.01.1951 is binding on the defendant as the defendant is claiming Mulageni right under the said document. The defendant is estopped from disputing the terms of the said document. The Mulageni right in respect of the above plot in Sy.No.127/5A remained with late Brahmayya Shetty till his death in the year 1968. He died intestate leaving behind his sons Yuvaraj and Varisena Shetty as his legal heirs, therefore, late Yuvaraj and Varisena shetty had acquired the entire Mulageni right over the plot. Thereafter, the defendant purchased the half Mulageni right held by aforesaid Varisena Shetty in the year 1984. However, in the aforesaid sale deed, it is fraudulently stated that the said Varisena Shetty sold the entire Mulageni right over the plot. In fact half Mulageni right remained with late Yuvaraj who never sold his share of half Mulageni right to anybody. Subsequently, the mutation was wrongly made showing as if the defendant has acquired the entire Mulageni right in respect of the plot based upon the aforesaid sale deed. The father of the 2^nd plaintiff, late Yuvaraj, being aggrieved by the said mutation order, preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Puttur as per RRT.SR.39/2006-07 which is now pending for enquiry. As per terms of the Mulageni deed dated 10.01.1951, the original Mulageni tenant namely Gunapala Shetty could not alienate his Mulageni right or any portion thereof. Further, it was also stipulated that in case of such alienation, the Mulagar/landlord is entitled to take possession of the property if the Mulageni holder fails to pay the annual rent at Rs.120/-. The Mulageni right in respect of the portion of the plot is purported to be obtained by the defendant and as such, she is able to pay the Mulageni right in respect of the scheduled part. The defendant was paying the annual Mulageni till the year 2000 to the father of the 2^nd pl