CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

1. These two appeals by the legal representatives of one Smt.Adavamma, respondent Nos.2(a) to (e) R2 and legal representatives of respondent No.2(c), calling in question the order, which is common in both the appeals in W.P.No.52321/2016 dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Writ Court.

2.

2. By the impugned order, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order passed by the respondent No.4-Land Tribunal and consequently rejected Form No.7 filed by the deceased Smt.Adavamma, seeking occupancy rights in Sy.No.39, of Beeranakallu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and District.

3.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

4.

4. The facts germane to filing of this appeal are as under:

5.

5. The legal representatives of owner of the land by the name Sri.Range Gowda were before the Writ Court, calling in question the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy in favour of legal representatives of Smt.Adavamma (the tenant in respect of Sy.No.39).

6.

6. The admitted facts as narrated by the Writ Court are as under in respect of Form No.7 filed by Smt.Adavamma:

6.1 As per the contentions of the legal representatives of Smt.Adavamma, the land originally belongs to one Karimani Siddalingappa. In a family partition among the members of the said Karimani Siddalingappa on 24.11.1958, the land in Sy.No.39 totally measuring 9 acres was divided and allotted in favour of his two sons i.e., 1 acre on western side which was fallen to the share of one Shanthaveerappa and 8 acres on eastern side was fallen to the share of one K.S.Revanashetty.

6.2 On 05.04.1974, Sharadamma, wife of Shanthaveerappa, sold one acre of land which was allotted in favour of Shanthaveerappa in Sy.No.39 in favour of one Range Gowda.

6.3 A suit comes to be filed in O.S.No.86/1974 seeking a decree of injunction against Range Gowda and others in respect of the possession of Smt.Adavamma in Sy.No.38/4 measuring 3 acres and Sy.No.39 measuring 1 acre along with a house on 18.04.1974.

6.4 In the suit, Smt.Adavamma had pleaded, which is more fully stated in Paragraph No.6 of the impugned order which reads as under:

"2.That the plaintiff, her husband, her mother and other children constitute a hindu undivided joint family. That the suit schedule property is being in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs family for past 50 years and the plaintiff and her family are cultivating the suit schedule land as tenants of the same.

During life time of the plaintiff's husband he was managing the family and after his death, the plaintiff is managing the family and she is cultivating the suit land as tenants. The plaintiff and her other family members are living in an hut constructed about 50 years ago in a portion of land in S.No.39 of the village. The plaintiff has herewith produced pahani copies of the suit survey numbers.

Dasappa shown, in the pahani copies is no other than the plaintiff's husband, Kardarammma (Rangamma) is no other then the plaintiff's mother and Dasappa and Chikkanna are no other than the sons of the plaintiff and Doddanarasaiah is no other than his brother. The pahani copies produced along with the plaint clearly shows that the plaintiff and her husband, and mother sons are cultivating the suit land as tenant of the suit lands.

Plaintiff is regularly paying rent to the 1st defendant's husband who died about 3 years ago."

7.

7. In the said suit, on the eastern boundary, it was shown as land of Revanna Shetty in Sy.No.39. This clearly shows that Smt.Adavamma was aware of the fact that the land in Sy.No.39 belongs to Revanna Shetty. However, there is nothing stated specifically that the land belonging to Revanna Shetty, wherein deceased Adavamma is a tenant. The suit was ultimately ended in a compromise within three months from the date of filing of the suit, that is, on 05.09.1974, wherein in the first para of compromise, deceased Smt.Adavamma has unequivocally state