Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 528
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
SRI NANJUNDAIAH S/O RUDRAIAH, SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS, SMT. PUTTARUDRAMMA, W/O LATE NANJUNDAIH – Appellant
Versus
SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH, S/O RUDRAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS. – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. ANANDA K.
For the Respondents: SRI. D.S.HOSMATH
The court established that occupancy rights under tenancy laws benefit the entire family, requiring evidence of original tenant status to assert individual claims.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 24 - Ownership - Plaintiff claimed title over land based upon an unregistered partition deed - Appellate Court found that defendant was the sole cultivator of the land since 1960, and that the partition deed was not adequately proven - Court held that occupancy rights must benefit the entire family, and not just the individual claiming them. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Evidence - The necessity of establishing the original tenant's identity for supporting claims of tenancy rights - Court held that the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the original tenant was cultivating the land - Therefore, the plaintiff's case of claiming title based on the unregistered partition deed failed. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff claimed ownership over agricultural land through an alleged partition deed. The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the Appellate Court dismissed the suit recognizing defendant's claims of ownership.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court found substantive evidence supporting the defendant's sole tenure of the land, negating the plaintiff's claims based on the partition deed.
Issues: The core issue revolved around whether the plaintiff could prove tenancy based on the partition deed and the authenticity of claims about the original tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without substantial evidence of the tenant's identity and rights, the claims based on the partition deed could not stand, enforcing the principle that occupancy rights are collective rather than individual.
Result: Regular second appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal was initiated due to conflicting rulings regarding land ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants claimed ownership through individual cultivation versus plaintiff's claim via partition. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the appellate court assessed evidence credibility favorably towards defendant's tenure. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court observed requirements for validating ownership and tenant claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. final ruling stated no substantial question of law arose. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned second appeal is filed by plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the divergent findings of the Courts below, wherein the Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration and injunction in its entirely.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit by contending that the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.46/1, totally measuring 0-38 guntas, originally belonged to one H.N. Shivarudrappa and the plaintiff's ancestor was cultivating the land in question as a tenant. Plaintiff claimed that defendant No. 1, as Kartha of the family, filed form No. 7 on behalf of the family, and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights after due enquiry. While securing Form No.10, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he has contributed a premium amount of Rs.500/- and therefore, the plaintiff claims that suit land is tenanted land. The plaintiff also contended that there is a partition in respect of suit lands, and accordingly, a partition was recorded on 22.01.1992 and plaintiff was allotted 0-9 guntas of land in Sy.No.46/1 totally measuring 38 guntas. Plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction.
4. Defendant No.1, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance, filed written statement, and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.1, on the contrary, claimed that agricultural land bearing Sy.No.46/1 was admittedly tenanted land and that he was cultivating the land in question in his individual capacity, claiming that he is the absolute owner and there is no question of effecting partition in respect of suit land. Defendant No.1 also claimed that he has been asserting exclusive title over the suit land and further alienated 0-14 guntas of land in favour of Ramu S/o Jogigowda under a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1996 and he further sold 0-24 guntas in favour of Venkategowda S/o Kempamesthri under a registered sale deed dated 28.09.1996. Therefore, defendant No.1 contended that he had not retained any portion in Sy.No.46/1.
5. Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims, have let in oral and documentary evidence.
6. The Trial Court, referring to the evidence on record, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and held that plaintiff has become the absolute owner of 0-9 guntas based on the partition deed (palupatti) dated 22.01.1992. Issue No.3 was answered in the negative. The Trial Court while answering issue No.3 in the negative, held that defendant No.1 had failed to prove that suit land was being cultivated by him in his individual capacity. Consequently, suit was decreed holding that plaintiff is the absolute owner and perpetual injunction was granted.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendant Nos.2 and 3 preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding authority, has independently assessed the entire material on record. The Appellate Court, referring to several admissions elicited in cross examination of the plaintiff, has recorded a categorical finding that the partition deed dated 22.01.1992 is not proved by the plaintiff and no credence could have been attached to Ex.P.1. The Appellate Court, referring to several admissions, found that defendant No.1 has succeeded in eliciting in cross exam
