Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29497
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, MR. G BASAVARAJA, JJ
SHRI. IRAPPA BASAVANNI KAMATE, SHRI. KEMPANNA BASAVANNI KAMATE, SMT. AKKAWWA W/O. BASAVANNI KAMATE MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA, SMT. PARAWWA W/O. MARUTI HUDEDAR – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. GURUSIDDA APRAJ KAMATE, SHRI. SIDDAPPA CHANNAPPA KAMATE, SHRI. SHIVAMURTHI GIRIMALLA KAMATE, SHRI. BASAVANNI BHARAMA KAMATE, SHRI. MALLAPPA BHARAMA KAMATE, SHRI. BALAPPA MALLAPPA KAMATE, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HIDKAL DAM, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KNNL, GRBC DIV.II, HIDKAL DAM – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100243 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners:SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondents:SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R3; NOTICE TO R1, R4 TO R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
Tenancy rights under family law are heritable; occupancy rights granted to one son extend benefits to all family members, supporting joint claims over ancestral property.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 24 - This section establishes that tenancy rights are heritable in nature, benefitting all joint family members. - The court reaffirmed that the eldest son applying for tenancy rights does not exclude others from their claims. (Paras 14, 20)
(B) Partition - In assessing joint family properties, the court highlighted that occupancy rights granted to one member benefit the entire family and do not negate the claims of other heirs. (Paras 11, 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought partition of lands claimed to be their ancestral property. Defendants contested, asserting exclusive rights due to acquired occupancy rights by the eldest son after the family’s claim. The trial court found that the properties were joint family properties, supporting the plaintiffs' claim.
Findings of Court:
The trial court’s decree was upheld, emphasizing that the plaintiffs had a legitimate claim over the ancestral lands despite the defendants’ contention of individual ownership.
Issues: The court addressed whether the trial court's conclusions on joint family property and tenants' rights were legally valid and whether the appeal merited intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that tenancy rights granted under the Land Reforms Act benefit the entire family, and claims cannot be restricted to just one member based on the application for occupancy rights.
Result: The appeal was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims based on ancestral properties. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal actions regarding familial ownership. (Para 10) |
| 3. understanding tenancy rights and ownership. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. tenancy rights as heritable and benefiting family. (Para 14 , 16 , 20) |
| 5. court's conclusion on defendants' claims. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) 1. The captioned appeal is by defendants No.2 to 5, who are assailing the Judgment and Decree rendered in O.S.No.6/2015, wherein the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs thereby granting 1/5th share to the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 jointly and 1/5th share each to plaintiffs No.4 and 5. The preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.6/2015 is under challenge.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Before we delve into the matter, we deem it fit to cull out the family tree, which is as under :
Shivarudra (died on 30.06.1983)
Mallappa Apparai Channappa Girmalla Bharma (Died) (died) (died) (died) (died)
Siddappa Shivamurti Basavanni Ballappa (Plff.2) (Plff.No.3)(D.1)
Gurusidda Wife Akkavva (Plf.1)(D.4)
Basavanni Mallappa (Plf.4) (Plf.5)
Irappa Kempanna Paravva (D2) (D3) (D5)
4. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiffs’ represents the branch of Apparai; and Shivarudra is their propositus, who had five sons. Defendants’ represents the branch of Mallappa, who is the elder son of Shivarudra.
5. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs contended that one Shrivarudra Bharma Kamate @ Narashivagol, who is the propositus was cultivating the suit schedule lands as a tenant. Plaintiffs assert that these lands were originally owned by family of Sirdesai of Vantamuri village and plaintiffs’ and defendants’ ancestor Sri Shivarudra was cultivating these lands. Plaintiffs claimed that these lands were submerged in the backwater of Hidkal Reservoir project. Plaintiffs therefore claimed that they are entitled for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.
6. The defendants, who are representing the branch of Mallappa on receipt of summons have tendered their appearance and have contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendants, on the contrary, contended that these lands were cultivated by their father-Mallappa in his individual capacity and after grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, Sri Mallappa acquired absolute right. The defendants claimed that the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Defendants also contended that their father Mallappa who also contested the proceedings after these lands were subjected to acquisition and a reference was also sought by Mallappa, after his death present defendants as his legal heirs have prosecuted the land acquisition proceedings and compensation was enhanced in terms of the order dated 13.08.2013 passed in LAC.No.68/2012. On these set of defence, defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. The Trial Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative. While answering issue No.1 it is held that plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating the fact that the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The said Judgment is under challenge.
8. Learned counsel for defendants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum has vehemently argued and contended that the plaintiffs could not have maintained the present suit seeking relief of partition only in respect of tenanted land. Placing reliance on the Ex.D.11, learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued and contended that Ex.D.11 clearly substantiate that these tenanted lands were allotted to Mallappa’s share and therefore occupancy rights granted to Mallappa will not enure to the benefit o
