JUDGMENT:

P. Sathasivam, J.

1). This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.1999 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No. 131 of 1999 in and by which the learned single Judge dismissed the second appeal at the stage of admission.

2) BRIEF FACTS: The appellant and Shri Shivayya (since deceased) and two others were brothers. Their father owned many properties apart from being tenant of suit lands. Their father died in the year 1952. According to the appellant, he alone was cultivating the suit lands as tenant excluding all the brothers. The properties were divided among the brothers. The suit property continued to be in the exclusive possession of the appellant as the same was a tenanted land.

3. Under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) all the lands held by or in possession of tenants stood transferred to and vested in the Government. Under Section 45 of the Act, tenants were given an option to be registered as occupants of the vested lands. It is the claim of the appellant that in view of the provisions of the Act, the suit lands, which were in his possession as on 01.03.1974, stood vested in the Government. He applied for registration of the occupancy rights in respect of the suit lands. The respondents herein claiming to be the tenant for a part of the land sought registration of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal, after holding enquiry as required under the provisions of the Act, allowed the application of the appellant and rejected the application of the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority which was also rejected. The Appellate Authority found that the appellant herein cultivated the suit lands and other brothers have never cultivated the same.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff, Shivayya (since deceased), filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share from the suit lands. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the appellate Court which also confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal on 29.11.1996. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the High Court being R.S.A. No. 105 of 1997. The High Court, by order dated 10.12.1997, allowed the second appeal and remanded the matter to the first appellate Court to decide the same in the light of the finding and conclusion arrived at by it. The first appellate Court, relying upon the opinion of the High Court, held that the suit land was granted for the benefit of the entire family and the plaintiff is entitled to claim his share and allowed the appeal on 14.12.1998.

5. Questioning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the appellant preferred R.S.A. No. 131 of 1999 before the High Court. The learned single Judge, basing reliance on his opinion in the earlier second appeal i.e. R.S.A. No. 105 of 1997, which is binding and final, dismissed the second appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court, the appellant filed the present appeal before this Court. 3)

6. Heard Mr. Shankar Divate, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, perused the entire annexures and other relevant materials filed before this Court.

7. Before considering the impugned judgment of the High Court, it is useful to refer the notice issued by this Court on 15.12.1999 when S.L.P.(c) No. 13747/1999 came up for hearing. The order passed, while issuing notice to the respondents, reads as under:

“Issue notice to show cause why the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 10.12.1997, giving the finding that the property shall be treated as a family property,