Karnataka High Court
Late Shri Dasanna Since Deceased By Lrs vs Smt Parvathamma W/O Gopalappa on 5 April, 2011
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
-Sf.'
....nrnv
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATT-AKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 5m day ofApril, 20_ i:1 5' A
THE HON'BLE MR JUs'f14cE;'A1iAVIr§D:ii1fniA1§"
Regular Second Abpeql N15 1 of
Between:
LATE SHRI DASANM '
SINCE DECEASED ;3_1{I.Rs '
SMT ._ :.
w/o1.AfII£ 1:s'AsANN;._ ._
AGED:i'ABOUT' '.30.. YEARS, *
S/O LA'I'ET*DASANN.A _
AGED ABOU.T».36~YEARS,\
sHR1.V_KRIsHNAPPA . " J
s/0 LATE DASAN1~IA ' A ~'
AGED ABQU1'~36 YEARS.
V. .. ..... .. ' V
D / O«LA'1x'E. DASANNA
" ~ AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
. "-ALL R';;AT..SONEKUN'FP2 VILLAGE
"~..__KASAB.A.~'HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
MKUR DISTRICT.
TU MKUR
APPELLANTS
[By Sri Sampath Bapat, Adv]
(fl '
ANI3
1
§..
SM'? PARKE-3~.'i'}'iAF»'EE%/E23
\V/ C) G€)PALAP§'A
E-RGED .fi\_BGUT 41. YEARS
R/ Q AT HOAE.-ENAIWEAI.-I
KALLAMBEZLLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK, 'FUMKUR DISTRICT.
2» SMT MANGALAGOVVRAMMA
W/' O NARASHIMRAJAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEZRAS
'I'YPiCAL- PRESS
VENKATESHPURA
NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD
NARASIMHAIAH BLOCK
BANGALORE.
3. SMTSIDDAMMA # --_
D/O SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUTBO YEARS' _ 'V
R/O AT SOi?EK.UN'I.'Ei \f1LLAGE;A._'N.._
KASABA ;:I<3g3§,1.,'s1F{A 'rA:~,UK" ' "
TUMKLER D1S'TRE--CT' .
4. Sm' 1\(L4'HAE1E"--V_AWMA " - .
D /'Q s1_DDAI,Ir'e(:u<xP;?A'T'T~..V ' _
AGED, AIBOUT 80 Y:«:A:2.,s;' "
R./O A'i*..SOREKUNf_I'E2'X[II.LAGE
;K_ASABAVi£OI:3L1; SIRA TALUK
'5ji'U?\?II{UR DI'E'£i"R_I__(3'1'. REISPONDENTS
;'iBy Svri«.FZ..V:Na.garaja, Adv, for R1 3: 2: R43 <3: R4 served]
."'._;*f1%i:g.'.,,__p<§;«;"'1:3; FELEED ms 100 <1)? we AGAINSI' THE
J'{3I3GMEi\§'I'~.._;f&NS }:>;::<::1;2.1::1:: DATEED 18.3.2006 PASSED EN
R.A.":\EO,7;'OU',"2OOE§ {am No 105/1993: ON THE FILE OF' THE
PRESEDINIG OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT N0 V, TUMKUR,
}.'?xLLO\V1'NG THE APPFZAL AND REVERSENC: THE JUDGMENT AND
DEZCREE DT,1.1G.199§ PASSED IN C).S.NO.130/1985 ON THE FELE
' --.AC)'P7.T}"{E MUNSIFF 85 JMFC. SERA AME) E3'.FC.=,
THEE APPEAL COMING ON FOR A133./TISSION THIS BAY, THE
V' CJQUEEK' §>E;Lm~:R§;:> 'E'I~¥ZE'; FOLLOWING:~
"W °"»'r".¢%orw""':'
«" ' " "" ""'1'm"
7/5%/§>{'X"K'»««/ar.««»:«.,...
JUDGMENT
This; sectond appeai is by the legal heirs efvdfeeeaeed third defendant, questiolmxg the eerreetnesss of the gudgment. and decree paseed eaurmz, Tumkur, in ex: No we as 29051' bf 19911 dated 188-2001, whe re.1,1nde1'~ _1'(')We1" agar}; » aliowed the appeal filed by pleixmffs and reversed the judgmefit"*eV:i':d in 08 N0 130 of 1985 by the CQ1_1g't_. of 'Sire, whereuI1de1° it had and separate poesesvsioné.
2. _.Sri S§é:rr_ipa.1;h learned advocate is appearing " V' ~..,fQr'»:e%;,§iei..,appe11a11fSf """ "Resp01'1de11ts 1 and 2 are represented Adveeate. Theugh respondents 13 and
-4: are serV_6n(*3aAtI1ey* are unrepresened.
3.," Si1{e::e the appeal is ef the year 2806 and this eeurt "h3;d"eeeured the reeerde of the iewer ctourte appeal is %,,,,,,.
,. V. »-w»,\»,,,.,....... . ~ .4" ,~.-
4 taken. up far fizmi disggmseii by <:<>:15:3§3~m:. 0f ieazrned Advectaws,
4. Heard, iearmsd ceunsel for the r;::_,;*1d learned counsel for respondentsgi and"'2§f_VPé;';*tic:»§-3 __ar't+:, referred the by their I1"€Sp(3CtiV€3 rafzlfi; of C€}I}Vt"3}T1}:€1"1C€. V v% V . ' .
5. It is the contenfiion {earned counsei for the appeliéflfis é1if;p_¢11at,e Court erred in reversing bf éind holding that third '£ha.t plaintiffs were aware of the 1 and 2 in favour of third_<;Eefe}fidai1t.1;}r1§It>_fVtiie sale deed datfid 146-1978 and =._CG1?LtEfI1gi1S that é5v'e'11'"'0Vtherwise, there was a plea put forth _b'§;j A.<::iéife11dant in para~8 of the Written statement c(§r14fVer1e:V1..ir--1g:3'.V--'t'ITV.1a1: prior to thee third defendant purchasing '~tAhe s1;1i.t_ schedu1e property, he was cultivating the same as V."'-.t€2n2§;'1t and had filed form No 7' before the jurisdictienai VA tribunal in Cage N0 LRM 6/'E'?'--'Z8 and it was pending /5?///>"7//////»~"$§9;\'av?.%»b~g»m\»~J///a>//!¢m,.,../..~awn». % &,..
5 adjnd.§.cat.i<}n and on 2}{?C{}i}..§.'1i, of the Sate deed dated i.2%~6- 1.978, having been exectuted by the dei'enda.11te t:.:':"éend 2 with the eoneent of the plaintiffs. the d.isp_3,§:téj tenancy receded to the bac}'§grou;1d""'aundV:
appiication before the land tribunal} d and contends that lower sale deed dated 14;5--19'}f8..t:uVntas".._VLnott on the piaintiff, ought to a:tVfie',éV:rnatter to the trial court for fra1ni3.1tgv.an tenancy and directing itddjudicated by the such he contends that judgrnentf by the iower appellate court is enfonetotls be set aside. He Wouid also thgtt }A'oi3z'e1""appeE1ate court erred in coming to a sale deed executed by the defendants 1 of third respondent without consent. of the p1aint.iftf<§, is to be inferred on account of the defendants I having? remained ex parte, ignoring the fact that suit in queetion was 31 cofiusive suit between them. He would t< 6 e':abe:"a£.e hie ESE,Lbi'§"£iSSE{}§1 by {.'{)I"E}[4€;?§1CiiE"£§_§ thzfi. ihird defemdami. had tendered eu.f'fic:ie:1t, evidezlee :10 he had effected Vast impreveme11f:s over preperty and HO}'1~CO£}Sid€I"&TLiO1'1 ef . L' the equities t:h3.t are vested \Vi;i:h appeflate Court erred in gr0'z,1_r1d, he would contend qILE€Sf.iO11S of Eaw formed in the would arise fer being f0rmula_teeI and eetlrt.
6. Per leeened counsel for the I support the judgment and decree appellate court and would eo11,tejideA.tha!t ef koint family member would not be by virtue of any 3.iie11z1ti_o1'1 made in respect Le {-3 joint family without the eeneenfg.
of members of the jeim famiiy. He would as .e';1eh.A 'ee§f1f.end that iewer appellate eeurt, on reappreeiatien facts and evidence. foL1:'1(:E that there wee I10 eensent éigren by the plz,-fintiffsz for 21lie:rza::£en ef the suit eeheduie %"M,,,
- - -- - - -
9..//.~aY;2v.<3'J.3&s"?/:27/J.'//..a"./»«.».\\.-:w.«.:u...... "~<2a¢\\"¢*....m.. ... ...2a~>.»;..< .».,\».a. .. .. 7 ;3r0pe1'ti}:n 3.53 eentencieci by the third defendant, arié ass s'u.e::.h lower app-eliate eeurt has rightiy decreed the-suit. as prayed for by the p1aiI1t.if£'s. He would Sllbfflit facts new pieacieci are questions of fact which' <:EoV..1"i 'e{ egifvey' rise for formulating sL1bst.antia1,"qiJe':stiQ;a_s .;ef "ia';,xg-?"fnuish 7 Eess one'e formuiated in the .memQ1*andL1_rr1:v_"_;0f 'eii313€.ai»f(5'£ being adjudicated by this eot;1zi.fV""and as eeeks for' dismissal of the appeai:}'~~..'_
7. Having heard the appearing for the parties. of judgment and decree passedireby' .tEie'--".1-awe:'"afipei'1ate court as also evidence tendered 'by: the trial court and taking into eonsifleraition fine, 'arguments advanced before this court, I e'rr:'«.,<#)f fiie-.4vee.r}s§_dered View that foiIow1'I1g substantiai qu.ee*£.1on' 'a$'i'-..1a:i>iz wouled arise fer Consideration in this
--Vappe.é'1§ T"
AA ..W?1ei'her the iower appeilale court was Correct in fiecreeéng the suit, after holding that the sale deed dazed Z4~6~,Z978, executed by the dejendanis I and 2 in jEf1u0u;r' eff' third defendant, as not birzding an the piozirzigfffi ¢ ,¢~""
fifl fig zmwxw. ,.»~:»¢»:/).9">7/9/wk'///1,/,n...M. ,. . . 8 w:'£'i'z0ui' Corwideririg £3153 péea; Qf £316 i"hiz*d defendarlt set up in para+8 Qf the zzrrititgibg stai'errzent. as :0 the dispute regarding i€ru'::;n_¢:g;_?'-.._
8. Brief facts of the Case are as under:
Piaintiffs and defe~I1dant.s propositous of the family was is said to have expired the plaintiffs and the det'e1}dar;.tS' estate. Plaintiffs flied the suit irJ1 'i_~_985 seeking for partition 1/4113 share in the suit SC}5iéd;_.§if,':' }§)'}:;DpéI?fj?"{}'§£'5v:,,- éigricultural Iand in Sy No 139, 5 '7 guntas, situated at Ch1kkas2;rzrié"a hobii, Sira taluk. It was".;§?;Ofr1tr:ndaeéi'A suit that on the demise of their _fi:A".L::--A:';L,1{'ijvA.v"'~-schedule property, being seifnacquired §;5§z*£){1'i1.<%V;a'fi3§"' Eff:..S:i?i'Vgiddaiingappa, it devolved on his Iegai
- heir;é "' pifiintiffg and defendantg. It was Centended schedule: property was not: divided amorzgst the of Sr: Siddaiingappa, and same was said by '= d?é'fendaniis 1 and 2 in favaur 0f third defendani: undér a ,,,,, ..
- ~ AW////»'r////,-2."z'..a.e-«cz/;_\»>m_v,',\, .. ,, 9 I*e§§ist.e;'ec'§ sate deed dated 1:4«6---£9785 emit t.hs;;::~3 suit. fer part.it.it):n. and separate possession {tame filed arraying the Subsequent purchaser defendant also as a party to suit. t T
9. On Service of suit summozts, t:t1trfd appeared and filed written 2 were placed ex parts}. T lr1:i_1f_4<.tt1VVV:A'«:'.:e1'e.r»;Ac1a.f1teentehded that the plaintiffs were fully}? dated 14»6m 1978 eXecute:d'_::b}r__ {Or a Valuable the safe deed was difizideceltte:ieVQttgst'«.,the__ plaintiffs and the defendants equaily. '' was that since plaintiffs were res_i(;gI:"g awaay S'L1 13.'[ schedule pmperty, they Could not Vjeizzzixa .e xeVcuti0n of the sate deed and they had given t1?__e1't9:._Vfei117¢Q;1;e:efit for the execution of the sale deed. It V . wasttheisevieefltended that third defendam: is a dose relative u piaintiffs and defenclants and as such it was contended the sake deed executed by the defextdants E. and 2 in his faveur is bizlding upon the piaintiffe aise. It was <.%,M._ ' 2; \-
18 :«->pe(:ificaiiy <:0:1'a;.€ndeG'7 thaw ihird {§€3f€3§".Eii£1I'I'E :3 in pfissesgion and smjzrnyrnezit of the suit s':tha%d1:EQV.§ ;fe§€.rt}? and Eoans have been raiaed through Development; Bank on the seggrity of property, a. borewweli has beef:
€:0ns1;r'u-::~te(:i in the suit defendarri: is residing therein_.____ 'v--az3.s a;1sa@::'ont§§nded that he has raised 20 cfi)Coii::,1t'--. Ltr§s:'¢s'4"'3,;1'::ii'~effected all round improvement oixt:1:__ the:st1.it
10. It W33' third defendant that wéis' schedule property and had filed "an in Form No 7 before the jurisgdict.i0n.é11'-I,§3.'n{i Tribunal and proceedings were going :{I1eVLand Tribunal, Sire. in Case No LRM 6/7'7» ?8'T.a:1d"'5fyr,_vi':5f:fié of sale deetii }1aV.i.:<1g been executed by the defiéndziflrit:-;""V' 1 and 2 in favour of third defendant, applicéiion before the land tribunal Came to be withdrawn it is submitted by the Ieamed counsel for the 2 Wé1ppeEiantTs that 0th€3I"¥V§S€3, third defendant wauld 3:101; have %W,m, _ ..¢/14:1... W . "11
wit'}2:fir2twn the ssaid 21pp2i::tati0n. Gr: t,hi$ gffiizfid, ha ssought far dismissaai 01" the: suit.
1}. G11 the basis of the p1eadi."r1gs Of court framed foilewing issues:
I} Whether the }9lCliTlI§']:T§:4g?FC§'iJtt3:VU"tt;i.i' t'~fté?y'u:,tfeA entitled jbr I 4%" share in 'su'ét"'< scheduie property_'?~~.,..V ' ' Vt 2} Whether the plain;Vti"].'s"'.._are.' é'n.t;itle_r;i for partition 0J_1Ct~t_separate possession Qf I / 431 share in the suit ;:pf':e}:lLLteiprfoperty?
3) \x'{»'}'14c::tti L6?' tftéttdejiertdtmt Nag? proves that the p:l:,Ltr?.ttf._'fs€LCbnse1jtte(:E- for sale of suit ;SCiLeét»z1I:£; prQp_éflty?' ' _ _A
12. First"p1ai13.tii"t5.'g"rjVf(*~fiérself examined as PW} and also got ;1':19_§kec§ éttad on his behalf he 2. 'Third "'dgfé:ad:af:tt'tis'~,s0n was sxarnined as DWI and examined two
s)_t;fi§:rAwiti':";,¢sé"{:s:;"vi2:., afijacertt. land owners as DWS 2 and 3 anti 1<:ta1"1<ed Ex D1 to D9, After' considering the pi{32;d_i.¥i'g$ and evidencc-3. of pafiies, tiria} court by its ""' '''~>''="*=:-m-«==,
-' tftttdgtzaent and decree dated 1m10~1991 dismissed the suit.
Cégf/,,.,._ 12 E3. Aggrievmii by fire disnzis-Sal sf the s:s:.1:?i,, p.iain':iffs _p:s:e3ferr&d an appeal in RA No .100 of 200E:vv~.(€3_i:Ci-._vN{:~. 105/1991) before the first a_ppellate <:0u1*L c:0urL after considering the s::Q:1.ter14tio;;i§WV1*?'i5§°"3a' ~ Zearned amrocates appeaafllg f0;1*?.'t1*:; §éT'* fellowing points for its dete%:n§11ati0fi"; . 1} Whether tlbze iria1AV-couuflr--i' 'figs; coh1r?1ft't.e}:i an error in l'a.Q_Zdir1g.'_ that" '«:ift53V"p%Iair1t7;[fi€ have cortsenledjbr frze' Lsézif: Q.]' i'.h{'u suit scheduie property bkyfl d_e_fL:r1dan1'Sj_--.3" and 2 in jk1vc)u'1"._oj"i'};'_tird dgjézidvant and they are not er¢'VtitZ'g:#r:Z'V for ji1ar_fl'L;ior1"'--------ar1d separate
1.-p'()';'~:.'..3e*;.~'v~.'-."-'I'_,'2r'1«Qf__tF*zeir*' 1';{41 '?_ share in the suit V 5}:l*i_6'Ciul6"'.*3r0p63I'iZ4"i5"'7 2} _ .Wf£c<i"h,.ér'»M f::'2{é'~....j.mpugI1ed. judgment' and " .decree.care' n_o"1'= .514:-stai.nable? 31 'wz1a--:¢:~=dér' court on peruaai of the pleadings sf evidence {beam era} and dC}€""§V'i"Lr1'--t'1'1€E*IV":1\'CE1$"$}}A and after considering the argumentg : »§3\d1?9g1c:.téd..by the 1€arned advocates appearing for both the &~_ p;Va:V::' 1Eiéf<--:», revéérsad the fi11di:1g§ <::>f ihe triai c<::urt and deemed " the $u1?£;. as prayed for,
-54 K «\.w\.~w<\'<\Nk\>< wmwwmmmmwfim 13
15. As; 0}:;sc:-:tr1.?<:i*,~d hereinabovei f:.I*1e= S'ilbSf.8.1'1tié11 q1.§é3i.i011 Gf Law '€A?'hi{'2h 112:3 beer: formulated hereiriabové «determine-3d in this appeal. ' i i M Re: Substantial question of E
16. The fact that " _prv(45';3,¢%f'fi:}? in beianging to one Sri is The said. Sri Sidda1in_gapp;'§"':did.'_}iii}--.A r1'3iVE'?iA}€VAvViSSu€C1 and was having four' daugh.t.5:.r:'~ and defendants. Said Sri Si§;§<?fiv2iii'§f:gfaLp1:5'a ieaving behind his daughters to' g3.1.,ui;(;ee--<"1' t--o'i'ii.is c§Sfati--:- is also not in dispute.
17. of Siddalingappa during the year i9"78"i.:~=;gV--.oi41'»_»14'~5iE3--1978, defendants 1. and 2 have tifi: u.gtuit."vs'C}'1'éduie property in favour of third __.d't<Vfr;:i*i:5;.éi':3=V:i 1i"m:_i{§;: a. registered sale deed. which Came to be Third d@fenda_nt: is the purchaser of
- '~s:,1it séiiédziie property.
' H By virtue «:)f' the sale deed having been execmed in '4"'w..i2'i1f0ur af third defen.da1r:L pieiizatfifs, W110 2:150 ezdmiiiediy fig?" ,,,,, ., 15 independeiii witness in Eihis regzirci. Tliis firidiiag W213 beer; assailed by the pla.intii"fs before the lewer 21ppellaie'{:_<3L1ri= and ii: was held that when a plea pu.t'f0r'i',h. defenciani as to the plaintiffs deed, the burden was cast on the said fact and iihird material whatsoever' '__t.o Ceheii.1,:siQ.h that the plaintiffs had c:onsehfecxihfof sale deed dated 14«E:3~1978 made by the defend.-a1i'i}g3.V plaintiffs was not 'izlras held that said sale is not Said finding of the lower appellate '°ee1;1::1.:_'V-.do--es'~~--":not suffer from any fallacy '"'«.._fwhva{so;e\feI:,. whiehwtalls for interference at the hands of ~
20. ""ll}ieWeivfe.f}V21t this jilrmture, it requires to be noticed 'V..?ihat'thii"c;_l. aefendaei: had raised a Specific plea that he was ":i"rc1.Vief:2,1:r1'!£ ef the suit schedule properiy and had. filed an V' appliztatiori in Form Ne '? before Land Triburzal for grain? ef
-e2'w'#9,9/3rz\\~»>vr»'?/'aw/zrkazssivmsz-e/zNyAw~..w,..,~»»z Xei"% 16 aceupaatzy t"ight,s and said mat,te.2" was prséndtttg 21<:ljudi:::at:it::n befare Land Tribunal, Stra in (3213::
6X77'»«'?8l The pics p'{11ifbrl.h by the third t 'il:f;t written statement is as under':
8. The third defendant alsci'«;'ttltl'vaVt'£.ng the suit schedule land as it tenant under" the"
first defendant, wha'l_w(1s rnanaging ilfie«--v...slizlit land, _f}*'om. the past years; ._ "PIeincé;, the plairiitffs and defendarits'-l_ and 2 sold the suit schedule land ta the thtrd'd.effendant. Now that the plainttljs cora.ter1d'--.thi:itV have not sold the suit land. the lhird'v'de]'endan;tis1.1,bmits that he COfli"UlI,.'£'S toVbev»te':1..aht in ar"espeCt' of half share in st;i'_i.larl.r.d cla.in1ed"biy.,thej' plaintiffs and as su(:h_ti1el'lqVues't11o'n_0f _terjiancyWCorries in issue, which relgaifés ,td=;§;e"det:icledV' by land tribunal. VVtierefQfe,17:.;(:_Ln issue q,"7._t_erianCy may kindly be framed. landfihe srgane rejzérred to land tribunal far de.r:isi}:xn._»ii*tl of half share in the suit sel1ediile--land; ._ ' ~ {A = The4:lc*w'€:r appellate chart. having found that sale deed was the plaintiffs, could not have proceeded to idetéree "tl1ve'_v»st:§;.t'Jas prayed for without co11std<-wing the plea
-' set 'tip by the third defendant regarding tenancy. A _'A.'.5Admit.tedlyt in the instant cases third defendant has .,,s.§et:.if1'eal1y pleaded t.ei1ar1cy in respect 0;' suit schedule ;;),,,W., VAN »uwvrMw2<\\\\\\>:\'¢.\\2a 1 7 pi'ops53**i'y 2-mci heivizigg; flied an ;1§p1.i.<::at.ioz1 fer graini. of 0c:<::upaI1c:?y rightisi withdrawing i:h€ 5-said c:i21im_4vi§;€§fiiI~&:v the lzmd tiiburiai, as IS evidenced from the Land Tribunal, Sira dated 26v4¢.1.97§3, @*:op'3{ Ed. which is; pI'OdLi('ff3d and {James iovlbgz depicizs as under: V i i V i A i The declarani: 31.0193 1Vhafi:..as"E(1_r1d fiasv-.I9<3é'n re~ conveyed to hit; he LQ{1I1i€'S_'.£"C)".'Li)iihdTClLU the p€iii'iOfl. " * = "
It is for this prdcise I1:«'VfiL1*'i'i:i1'_a:,'*.3_.y1s'2'd'-'Id deed dated id-d 1978 having defendants 1 and 2 in favour of thifd' \z$if'fidfeur the Claim for tenancy.
22.3 At be of benefit to extract the of the Karnaiaka Land Reforms Act. 196i which wouid have a bearing on
-pvlea. fhiuiiig. by the third defendant in this regard, and 133 of the Act., which read 35 ,,..i...,,"_ iunciér: V' WW.v.wmwmmmmmm2mm<Ma 18
132. Bar ofjt1risdictior1.«- {E} No efeit court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or cite-at with any question u,:hich is by or under t"h:1:~:< required to be settled, decided or deaZt"«V.z.:_:_ith.':Z?§;~ 3 the Deputy Commissioner, on oflicer stztétitottsed A under subvsection {1} of sectioh Z Assistant Commissionerj, the autshority under section 83, the Tribung1E;.;the_ A' Tahstldar, the Karnatalca Appetitite:Tr'ibz,::z2at~ the State Goverztnlentétt exer'eise-- of th.e--itrA powef's '' Oféfontrot ' V {2} No order of the Deptigg C'ommiss'ion;er, an officer autitorisect wilder. "subsection (1) of section ?7, the AssLset~'ctr'1:t Co'riUhis_;sior1er, the prescribed autsho.*it.1_,;". uncter "seetion 83; the Tribu11ed.,«v.t_ the Tfah.sil'déitr;.j_'~.._ Karnataka Appellate ;Tt'i.bu.rial; or __..the Stdte Government made unt:fe'r"'tt.1isIAi3tVshettl hi-3e'vquest1'oned in any civil Oi?VC'fE'?J"h;~E:fn(Fl eoetft'. "
133. Suits, proeeedingsp'ete;',__V""i.m:oIving questions required '=--t4o* be" deci~dé;l by the Tribunal --- [U,Notwiihstan..ding anything in any _law__for the Vttime being invjE;3rceA,;-~-- {t}'v.V "no &:'iuil*-'or "Criminal Court or Q/Jteerorh'flutfzofityashall, in any suit, ease 'or s.pr"oL*veediI:g.s..eoneeming Q decide tfteftgzjtesttort whether "£952: KAFE. A.__CT-$0] Land Reforms _flIE~..23'VVsuch ..la;_1d is or is not dg?5i}3u;.It:.Lrta'l lttnd and whether the .V 'gjersori' C:C£t?t?1ing to be in possession «sis o_te.is"'r1ot 'Ct tenant Off the said land .frT*o.zj1"prie%r to Est March I 97/4;
V1t3*;f:_ "i;"h*s:-"€"hpi21.i:'£'i,iffS§ it eouid not have decreed the suit, as ..,.,.,,.M,m t-L>7.\»\7/v~4ii¢' ' . .' 3 ' 19 {ii} S1£(f?I. Court or czjlieer or Az,tthori.iy shall ezagg such suite or 7 proceedings in so far as sucfzf' question is concerned and refer same to the Tribunaifor decisiong' = {iii} all ir1t'er'im orcieAfs'"'z1sis'u,eo,?.' .0}? V made by such Co'uri",qf 123;'/'iceif *0?' V Auihorirly, whether in the-._na£ure; of"
tenlporary irgjuneiion or appoint'mer«;_:""v--
of a R€C€iU€I""'a. "0I" oLhei*wise,K:
corlcerning the _l_(_/T£i'viv;Z?'.__ ':3_halE "stand dissoiued. '_ ua_-jhaiea-, the case may be; e .
{iv} o the i!"ril2Lzz:*;,i:zl~4.V;s"?*::'j:-ll' 'decide the qt._tes§}:oz: r€fef;?ed to fit. under clause
iii) _(.';mt2'."'eorrirt:ufiieciA¢eA'-fAt'sw' decision to such 3'V.;C'Ou."§."'Q1ffCC.Ij or Authority. The "dA f::isio§'fa"' oj"~,_ihe Tfiburtal shall be {2} Notlliiigj {I} shail preclude the Civijor C'rir'ni{1crlw.(T}oLz'2*;€ or the ojfieer or authority M/}ro.r;%j; proceed'in.__ _____ _uJit'h the suit, case or A_proeeetiing"3& in respect ofany matter other than referred"i¢o_ in that subeseetion./ 1o§5vervhA.j'$a;[§pe1Iate court. having found that sale I_4:.'0--t':§.1978 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 A"«_."in4"£?ii."€}m' of the third defendant: would not bind the share % um praycsrd fk:§;;° in Si} far as ths:-% plairiijffs' E5hEiI"'€ is <:<mcer:r1ed, inetsmtzctlt as; the pica with regfetrd t0 the t<:r1a_m':jy~.._§15tvir1g* been put fQ'r'f,l1 by the third defetndam, the to have stayed its hands in 21dju_diC;tting'thé'<5f 5' tenancy and ought ta have :'c:3f7r:":ArrL§_iii~ jurisdictécmai land tribunal'fb'1<_.r€SQI'viV11g_thv§:if~._§iairtis vizézfl as to whether thirci ;'_t1et"en§j.a_ht"Lv.was. t,hé'--tv€:'n.atht of suit schedule property the said finding from' titgg' 'ought to have adj udicategl had not otherwise.
Since h'é§eI'z;vL1ndertaken by the iower appeiletig and decree of the lower appeliate hotlrt in-_ the suit of the plaintiffs as pragkéii wAou1d"b'e"c'ajntrary to the provisions of Sections A.o:f.,Ka1"r1ataka Land Rf3fOI"I1"1S Act, since third défe§iv{:iar;;t,.--h.::ifi alreaéy raised a piea with regard to T3"-w__ 'tE:1":aI1Cy.V__Ai§n pa}:a~8 of the wriitten statement and was T 'pA1"0fi€'it.it1tir1g his hssgitimate Ciatim bemre theé jt1r21$d1'(:tianai .. £a.z"}_d tribuneli 1422., Land Tzibtmai, Sim £13 Case No LRM mm 21 6/'}"E378' Ag seucrh. S'{X§3S§3..I}i,i€i§ q'Li€3:Sfi(}I"i Qf law f0;fn1nIaf€d in this appeal re:*.qui:*€:s in be answered in the appefiants and against". the defendants is answered. ._
24. In View of the sub$?;:e_n'1ti::1 }n. answered in favour of the and decree passed by cannot be sustained and aside and the matter is framing an issue in this regaxidyy a finding from the jurisdictionén tenancy claimed by 31'" defendant s1,:1_2it on merits. Hence, the folio"/ing; 'V * "z«'¥q)npe'aEV.V 'i§."yj--:a}n§n'aved by answering tine substantial quei$'i1:n r;...o:f law in favour ofthe appellants:
aw E i E
iii) 22 Jtxdgsment and decree ciated 1€i%»8e20<36 passed by the iower appeliaie court in RA No IOU of N0 105 of 1991] is hereby set .21si<:Ie;
Matter is remitted to the jt:ie1_1_ eo1:1ft§'fe§*.';ffarr:ing._eiI'1» _ issue with regard to the"; t,e;§a1'1ey9".Ci'aji11eVd:"Le'-bjgff.31""
defendant and a * f1'nding"'w.__"frerri the' > 'V. ' ' ': &#wWWm jurisdietmnal land tsriburjal 'Ox; the"'sa.iAd_.i'ssue and dispose of the sill': 01': e_:fi:e:'its' >s_fte1*.obtaining such a finding ffO'1":f_1 i:1iji"bs,l1'}<1_::1}.:V' N'0"eo-rder asfi.;°:"0 (i'0s"t-s.
Registryfo eiecree aecsrdingly.
$ 1 "'* U} m 9""
W3 . . .. ...~..«H,,M.u.www/s9»s«xv:v::% f~'15§'»"*§'3%§