Karnataka High Court
U F M Maruti Vaikuntha Naik vs Ganga @ Seetabai Kom Rama Naik on 24 March, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN ma: man coum or mnmulu xr
Dated. £112'... th- 24th d.._v 9:»:
mm uownm nen;qus?ram 3:! J
_s___.._...._:sm._Re mar second A iN0_2£---~--2Q-: 14 0-"é
IQ BSA N9. 3.g;§<_§_g£ figs Vk '
BE1'WEEI§!__;" * . '
Smt. Ganga«@'Sév:tabai' "
Wife of R'am~ '
Aged':-_1bo.u%i. 75' y-'aegis _ _ .
R3rot,«.msid¢ént_;' __
District uum Ka':s1n£:_da*-"-- 581 301 ...Appe]lant
A _ A A{B3}VSIi------'Jigucshwar S. Shastri. Advocate)
J U.F'.'Ma[:'Ma1ufi _' 'h
Sic! VaiIcunt£hO~ NOU-K
,. Aged about 77 yearns
Ryot and Pensioner
Constable)
RIO Bead, Karwar
District Utuara I{............-=."~=-_"-=- = 581 $1
Smt. Ahalyabai
'v'v'io 'v'aucunT" " . in
Since deceased by her L.R.-3.,
//
5/
.11:
IO
Rukma Savalo Nail:
Since deceased by L.Rs.,
{a}{i} UFM, Shivanand
Son ofsavalo Naik
figcd about 46 years I
00.0: Ryot, rfo Based
Munasinakatta .
Telang Road. Kanvar V
District Uttam Kannadef-'--«.,:SB 1 301' %
Smt. Mangala V «_
Wfc Gajanaa Malaebar
Major
(ice: Ryofn
R/0 B19¥iE£1 ." _ =:
Tal11l£Ii--..Kaifivar~. V 3 .
Dis*éiicif,.i;Jttiifa 53 1301
~
So_n..ofC-'ha;1dru . _'
"-cam... .+ ' .
mguzvgu ungvvcguzyu M
'lIJ\l£cI'flGli".]\I}"1\ii3 I. Wu
J I.'\\'I ,
' ~ W/0 Ga11a'p"thi'NaJ'k
. Rio Band
-V Uttara Kannada - 581301
Waman Naik
Ageiiabeut 52 year.-5
"€)c€:'.' Household work
" Eio 1'v1ai1uu""'evaai'mau""" "Du-wu"""
Talilka Knrwar
District Uttara. Kannada --_ 53 1 30 1
Kamala Ganapati Nail:
about 5'? years
Rest --do-
7 Chandrashckar Ganapati Naik
Aged. abcut 46 year;
000: Business
Rest --c':c»-
8 Kusuma Cianapafili N
Major
Rest --do--
9 Radha Ganapati Naik
Aged. about 45 _\,rg_f-r.r.a.m
Rest --do- V ' ._
10 Gangadhar _ .
S/'o Ganapati -
Aged a:};3o'a:T.l._?$--8 yaguns --.
R99? ' , _ 1
Ramanaz1i.;Mg}afiapafi%%4N%ai;£L _
~ b3rA?.1i:.=.- i.-:!'§':';'-;,L
1 1 :"Sfit;
@ C«handramOU1i V '"*- é ' J
Major - V
; ' 'V R10 Digqliwada'Ki11ua1'
V 'D'i3tE'£{;t Uttara kannada - 581 301
1;.-'3- ' .. Cra.1I.ap.n;ti Nait:
about 4 1 years
Gec: 'uisiness
. Resident of Mahadevastan
District Uttara Kannada -- 581 301
'E13 Nagarai Ganapati Nail:
" Aged. alrout 4-3 y«:;n..n.=.t
Occupation Business ' //
Z.-gain All_ I
"GUI. """W.l.§J"' . V
15
l:)if.s.tt'i¢:ji"'i¥i.tg;;_11a ms
Manjtmath Gagapatj Na_il:
Aged about 39 years
Gee: P-usitiess
Rest -do-
Pandurang Chandra Nail-I .
Since deceased by hiaVL.R'a.,
Ramadas
S,I-2 Pa_nd.u._r:.uI_ga__N9_1'_k
Aged about 44 y¢ :£Ir_s
0613. Pr-&-:3 Constable. '
G/o P.K.Kalas. _ . .-
Primary Eieaitin' came
H98Ht1¢'kt'2'l1.8'- .
Post %
"int -5 581E401
ismt. -- '
'nr 1'- n1'..1....,:1"..-- rm...-.1~.,
\-I; u [Vll§ll_.1ll.U.U'<'£ nea.I.n-,
about 48' "
?\u'a=a_iic:, '
;' - Near F'o.sfc0fi'ice"
Belekeri
'finkbla
« " Uttara Kannada -- 581 301
V' safit.-. sma
'I.' fr; Elam.-:1:
WW " U -DJCl.fl..l-.I-I»Cl.«Ll 11¢!-!-B.
about 49 years
" _(';;'o Ll.-:lXI.l.lI.-I11 G.
Fomnt G11:-and
R.F.0. Oflice, Canacona Post
Gaondongri
Canacona
C-ea. -- 580 00 1
C
18
19
20
21
I
Resident of
Katwar T f;
District U tiara Kannada -- 581 31') '1 A'
Mcgra V_
Deceased by L.Rs., "
Udaya __ _
61. 'I .... .-...... 'NI.-..£1:.. .~
ID] V IJUKIIICILI 11515 V ' I
Aged about 45 years _ .~
Rfo F?ei1i_:m'i_C§I1nihét?1"Eri:a(i.._
Dis1:I?ic't.Uft§;1fa I{a1_1_11a§ia__- 531 301
Smt. "
' !*1ag9.cF.;....#fid2'é;:" K-r.:i22'-,9;a"-5-.p=L=-.t11;n;;..h
1'- Agc;_.-.:1 abut'-11$ __ -- '
'R 1' a=._Chc::.ug:$:
Goae 403 cm%% A V
Gulabi e
Naraahinha Nail:
~ Agz=4'i~_a'bo_ut 41 years
T' - .R,!. 9" M92.-!sa~s=..=zWnfl:a
vvun -
Biflagar
9&1 Kai*w*a-r
.4 " z Distzict Uttara Kannada -- 581 301
23
Vinayak Laxman Naik
Aged about 39 years
R [0 Behind Gurumath Band
Rest --do- 581 301
J yashree @ Jyoti
of Ajit r:m-='-
Aged about 33 years
R10 Gindiwada
Nandangadda
Reef -419---
Li)
J;
Nageficira Laxfiian 'Nfik
Aged about 33 years
Rio Behind Gummath Bead '
Rest --do- ' ..
25 Anil Laxman Nail;
Aged about 35 y'eara _4 V
Rest --do- g AA * wfleepcnzdenta
(By 5:-'rfi R 'v' V-.}a}*aj5ra}ias:h, fer R1;
,R2.._(9_;}, R3, R5,}R'7; V19 served;
Appea'l.vab{i'_ited as against R-4 '6LI:1(i"'R8 on".33-3-2007)
RSA -~.fiIcd:'} 11]: '1.00_of A' CFC; against the judgment and
dec1ee"(1a"ted¢':;17-$200.5 RA No.202_[1971 on the file
of the Pr_l._ .Judge«4,(S:j,_Dn.), Kmwar, dismissing the appeal
and cefl".'.-1i'.1.g~.t11..e*»_1;I..I.t.!.¢r;,,1_1'ne11_t and dated 17-7-1971
pasaed ir_1 OS Mo.97A;r;9-.95 the file of the Prl. Mm1sifi'&. JMFC,
I7.____ -
" !i;'F}MvM§§1j11i~iVVmkun' tha Nail:
S}'--o late Vaikuntha Naik
Aged about 76 years
x Ryot and Pensioner
(P-2J_iee Constable)
" --. "R10 Baad, Karwar
Dis*..:'ict Utter;-. Kama-.e.da -'- 581 391 % -..A.ppe__llant
(my Sfi R 'v' Jay'a"r""*"h, Ad'mm-gate}
1 Ganga @ Seetabai
K0111 Rama Naik
Aged about 81 ycara
Ttynt, I'-tin iimwar _;
Uttara Kannada District --- .'3'8*1
2 Parvatibai Kom Gopal _
Major, House Hold Duties "
Rfu Kajublzag
'Eiistrict 'Ut'uai"a Kan.--2~.;1a if ; ~
Since deceased by half L'.'R._; "
fiespondent i\io.1"' "
Gungafil,' g
Kom~RaméiNai1rj*. x .
Aged ab¥:i11t"81. yeatfa V' V. A
R/o Kafivézr ° '-
-.01
"UFM %a';3"afi"Gh3-.f,1iiz"' l'u"aik
M@i01"~ " ,. 4'
'I-"'1'iV'a.h: 'S¢1vice._V >.. 5
* Btlrma'-Sh'el1
Siddafiur. ..... .. «
"Now at Kaxwar
--. V -~ .Ll'iu':1zt&=l" Kannada District
' v..Sé3.1is::,- 'deceased by 11123 L,Ra,,
U3
{3} *m..u' -----~11-.5,-.4-1
V W/0 Ganapati Nail.-I
Aged about "75 years
[b] Shankuntala Waman Nail:
Aged about 55 years
H Kamala Gauamfi N
aged about 53 years
15/
Id]
[:1
IF"!
I"
Chandrashekar Ganapati N ail:
Aged about 51 years
I I
Kusuma Ganayata l\!....c-11:
Aged about 49 yeare
Radha Ganapati Naik '
Aged about 47 yeaxfs '
Gangadhar V
aged. s_a;hm.1__t45 years ..
RaL1a1-.am' AA "
since deceased Vbyfher L,~R.",V _j . _
V
Agcd"éfl3ouf'--35 jr*eaj:3 '
V
_
L 2 h uuuupuu
V about 41 years
m+.e:5,r;-. '"=*.:.'*3r:t - 531 am
_J_(.IIJ J I 1.-
'}~\ __ .......4..'. m....'1-
"tun.
. «Nag:a«1V?é'1j"«Cira11apati Naik
Aged about 39 years
ViF;.de;t1j11nath Ganapati Naik
" Agged abaut 3'? yams
Respondents 3(5) tr: (3) i-int': {3}
Residents of Mahadevaatan Band, Karwar Uttara Kannada District - 581 301 In ...n..\........
1111} c 4 Panduranga Chanclru Naik Since deceased by his L.Ra., V\/ I. /' 'O [a] Ramadas Sic Pa.r;:l_u_t11;g Aged about 60 years Dalian II.
l"U'l.I.UI': Cui.'iE'{'i:'1'1'a'r "
Cfo P.K. Kalas 1'\.N.ivi. Prixnary Hegdckatta P.O. Shivali, Simi Taiult . . = Uttara Kannada Disflictfi'-581 401 V I-uni S_nr_It.= Mangfl:-_1 W/o Mahadev Aged about 63 _ * C/0 M31'. Naik V fiear 't"ost'*3fice,"' --
Belekeri' _ Ankola., if _ ~. 5 3 .
"S;r'_TI.'i.:..A T.S:;vit;i§i: " , '- C,' "
Fewest Guam _ ' ' Clfiit:-c ' ' ~ Caxlacotmt' "
:Pic»stGaoi1d.0.Ilgs'i "'£1ana9ona, Goa -- 403 001 F?
1. E ' Kom '- V (deceased by L.Ra., [a]' Smt. Rangu " v.W'io Submya Beiurkar Aged about 45 years Household work R10 Kotlibag, Kazwar Uttara Kannada District -- 581 301 [b] Mcera Laxman Naik any-I I-nu: '-nunn I nu l'"U, tn-I-1.1-Inn rhfhfill ULIJUU Lal.I.Z\iI.i|3Rl\e\-I I-IJ ,l-I123 -I-1':
h/' I-7 . \ MI' 9 [I14] ljdaya 'F " 5/0 Laxman Naik Aged about 40 3,!-'...!=.1'4.-; R/o Behind Gurumath ISBFWEI' [b--ii_) Smt. Pushpa @ Jaya1nt»2_l,=,1""
Nagachandra Koma1*patl1'&:V;"'» Aged. s.+.LI«_n4L 38 yt_:,a_1'a Chougule Quarters-,_ 1' _.._4.:'l:....
l..rd.l..I.I.I.l.u.
Goa-403 001 [b-iii] ' Aged ab,0ut"3'?._ ye;a:'fa_ _ V. " ~ ' Malasgwaflg: " ~ Ka_FNaf"!';311_1k.M "
_tta1'a }..mt**n";a*da.B3aL*$_'_:t = 5581 WI in-iv] Vinayaka ' ' 'V Aged ahqut 35 years Rio' Baada ..... <4 .
Gurumath Baad ~I<mWar ._ ' .I,Jtta'_m;'T~s<.,_%m.m1_ar_1a 1:_1:su-ict - 581 301 'ifi-,-fr} Jays.-i}'%&u"ee (5). Jyathi ' . 'W/o Ajith Naik ' v.A§.;ed about. 28 years Gind iwada Nandanagarlda Karwar Taluk Uttara Kannada District -- 581 30 1 [b--vi) Nagendra Laxman Naik Uttara Kannada District - 581 * Aged about 28 years |M/ ugh; Smt. Mangala nuin nninnnnn 'lMn1§e'ln:n"
an-a y_n R/o Behind Gtlrumath Baad K.-a_tw:.-:n_r Uttara Kannada District --- 581 301 [b-vii]Ani1LaxJ:na11 naik [al vr,I"«;s Aged about 31 yeam R/o Behind Gummath Baad.* X I-ieuwar .
Uttara Kannada 581 V A_ha.l_ya:L»ai K._m \_(ai1:unt:;1._N:aik ' = ._ Major '_ ._ Hausa [obi , _ Resident ofKaj11bhag ' Utlara§I{£2m1ada=:Die;tz.i£:l _ Si11qc.cicc.z:ig1i3_::(i~b:y_he;' L.._R3§.. V Rukn2a':S§=i§yalc; V 6[a;-ii"
n,c1.u.a.} .-{u %deceased by«.t§¢r L.Rs., . . ,1 ~ .» ,_tt€'l,l.- :1" Zfihn ,,I.Jl.i.§I...|:7'_.rl. 1.1.1:. ~-Sihivhianfindé.
_S)"o Savaio . "Aged about 35 years mafia Rue-»'""' Katwar r\t'\1 " Kannada fiisirict - 58E cu;
Smt. Mangala w_lo Gajanana Maleekar Aged about 33 years Ryot, rjo Binaga Karwar Taluk . .
Uttara Kannada District ----- 581 ... 1 C I--
I9 (By Sri Vigneshwara S. Shastry, Advocate for' , R3(b};3(d)s 3115 3(1): 3(Q., R3(h3€53.- 3{h){iiL .;. R3(k). R4(a). R40». R5(aJ. R5(b)- R5(b'i)s'..§'5(bt'ifl$" '» R5$=i:'.i}, R5{b=iv} te {'..*.==."Jl, sued R5{a-z'}..a¥e."'s.e11.t,e£1.; Réfb) not sewed; R3(a) ami»3[e] csgecggiseag ' V ~ RSA filed 11/3 100 of GPC;"1'agaii1at_ end E decree dated 1'?-8-2005 paaeedein Rh .No:2002.{-1971' on: the of the Prl. Civil J udge (S1*.D1i.~}, at. "i(a1wa1',, diamieaixng the appeal filed against the j11dgtmeh-t anrtdeeree deter] 17-7- 19'?'1paas.:ed. m 05 N¢_;__S37,J'19§9_ §'m._the file or ,tJ1e_ Prl. Munsiff _ and JMFC. KBIWBJ'. V _ 5 These RSAS coming 'fb1;admiSaiLun1 _this day, the Court. delivered the foI_1oWi11E=:"* " ' V' appeal filed by the fast plainfifl; whereaa,.._I§'E'nA .11/t the third defendant. . t " ~.As betiiiwttvne appeals are against the same judgment Lower Appellate Court, they am taken up for For the purpose of convenience, the parties are t !?referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. ./ I"--'
4. O.S.No.97/69 is filed for partition possession in the suit A and B schedule mcsne profits. First plaintifi' is tho. 1. whose husband was one Gopal on 290: February 1964. He had' Vaik-.-.nt.. ..nd _!....1'.9..§...t= X-:::r_é§: before he the" year 1943 éioavxing :'vi'_ ' ' -- his wife 5*" defendant in the suit. and two wives by name __ Gamti had we sons by name and are first and second defendants in "wife of Chandra had a son by name ' d " died in the year 1967 without leaving any The case of the plai11i:iI"1" is that A sohrzdm of' 5:11 '.p1opemes are joint famfly pmpezfiea and B schedule properizics ' self acquired properties of Gopal. Gopal was serving as Dafadar in the District Judge's Court and he was getting I V 14 regular salary and out of his savings he has pumheésedflsoizie of the properties mentioned in the suit schedule 4_ of them on mulgeni basis. After thedeath . 1964 the defendants have got 2 schedule properties. All theii.1:§inc_ls pmmrttles hs..e b-..n_ _.1_1t_.. .11. 'game. '*'I'l:1_ei1f_i1ame is also "ntered '-'ong with the E-#519 t J'. soheduie properties. 'did aim 'p%j,..L...;.;:-...=..= 3 -...;.......~. pmperties__e1tt and in fact, brothers who- Gopalu could not have out of the meager income of the joist Thexefoxe the defendants haile no meiineif 1*ifii}1t.,_titie or ihterest over the B schedule property. " item of properties in suit sehedule B, stands in V .1243 ' ;f_]2'_._s;'.m_t=.!11_ D1: :3. However, the property was possession of .If:}_T,'1l.u."fiiiLfi ".'1'i"'fi "1 A eehedtile w.P;§-perfies. 'L/ .-
kn
6. Defendants-2 to 4 entered their written statement denying the claim of the _ did not admit that B schedule ipmperfieisl V ; properties of Gopal. They contenti.Vtha_ti'even-- have taken the lease hold 'himself t 'F 11' ..f Cepal,"vGLia11_..n1 they Egan ('In no' '.11.; 1.41.:-5.1.4.1." -LIL! a.n.:.\..ru..un-u- d"" th-t 't'h"i"" 'v"v"""S a 'se:a"-::anc° of states Even d:.:1'-mg the life I'l'I!'I e of Gopal, he Vwasyadt memher of the famiiy. m d the death yeeejeiietitend undivided. Gopal being sons of Panclurang, was the Manager -al-lie.dii..Vi_i1ndivided family. After the death of Pandnrmifi, properties stood in the name of has i-Vvas' hthelielcliest member. Sy.No.80, 238 and 1400 i it " of Village, were on lease to the joint family even Lg were continued or given on A by thepjaoint family on lease in the name of Gopai. Sy.i'io.72 of Village was purchased by the joint family in the year "?1927 in the name of Gopal. Sy.No.91]1 and 91/2 of Band Village were purchased by the joint family in or about 1937 for
-I V ' u-s I31 and on behalf of their joint family but in the Sy.No.66l3 and 5315 of Kodibag Village properties. Gopal was doing pettyjob. it to meager salary of Rs.10/- or so 1030s. He was not. in position_V:to..save "extent at other hen", the father o. p. _.._-nt_...d_:'ei'encl_;ants'-is 2 and the 1____1._.....1 _1."Ai-I1 .a...t'.....IL'.~ t .: '-= V» V ' nuuuunu. U1 -r-- ucxcuuufitrwazp u..um....u. 5......" 9... he happened he .....&"L=""é'lIuit=L Mme:-t murmu- per month. His income Isaiah. income and the joint family consis_ted_ and Chandra. The income of the difi'erent.memhers family was pooled and the lion the income of Chandra. The properties " .1efeonedV. to above acquired out of the joint famfl y moo' me A are enjoying the income of 5111 the ionds jointly. 1.11 3:
~.t1;.§t; joint family house was constructed in the year 1943 'by "spending huge amount. Hence they contend that all the properties described in schedule A and B of the pleint are the 7 t.
M] by the Court. %t'r: the pa:-ti"s joint family properties. They contend that suit is ,a's.4the partition has been efiboted by referring 1 to 4_ arbitration, award is also passed vineeethep _ are also parties to those prooeediiigs passed by the arbitrator is _ V oon.t-and that d
1.. the a.I.I.ra_jnd, the share in 3% no I (ii! I J7"-'-I .09 '-5:
'1:
c:
I 1-D .0. ;' I '-4 5 I 3 the await!' lies set omit the statement. Even otheIwis_e,V 115th share.
7. 5 also filed separate written statement of the plaintiffs, on similar terms . " of other defendants.
8;-._ .- ~ " On the aforesaid pleadinm of their respective mntentions. The trial" ' ' Court heid i "that the case set up by the defendants is not proved except suit items 7 and 8. The plaintiffs have established that several 2' items in B schedule properties are self it held that plaintiffs are entitled to mesne pm-.fits,, . barred by time and therefore it ; in respect of A schedule
-.._-_-__.. .'.. _:_:v = v
9. AEEIICVULI by fl'ic~ L j'iT.C:""'C-I'.|t and 5:
'-f\.0'.I I19' Inlul-V-F defenaan§v.P,cfexmfi. in R.A.I~io.:'&G;'?.i'fi.
The and decree dated and decree of the trial issue and directed the trial Court to dete11ni11e4'the evidence on the additional 'V issaes in law. Against the judment and i is is'th¢l.«p1aihtiii§ filed Miscellaneous Appeal before this i.§!0;4.;,'8S= _he said was allowed. The _ aside aha judgment in C).S.Ne."7i 9 passed by the C-Oii.1""I. modified and the learned Munsilf was directed to consider l _the additional issues as raised by the lower appellate Court, record its findings theieon and submit the same to the learned n It} Civil Judge to enable him to dispose of 3 in accordance with law. The mm Court i on P.W--1 and D.Ws-1 and 2 and mariied tZee4j« and Exs.D-1 to 31 and sent the to ('..'ourt. After arguments v_meIito%__ the defendants filed 9.13. applimtioni ;[-gear, -1' the land Reforrne Act. I"u uuiiffirtuu 3 36.1997 seeirting stay of all ftlrftiaer fiilsposai of the writ petition eeidj nppliootion was allowed and further In the mean while, the second an application to bring the L.Re were iiledion was allowed. Thereafter, it was brenght to the Court that writ petition pending 4, ~ allowed and the matter was remanded Hanna. The .n .. nng r uusliu 132 and Ap133(i?;)V__iof the Land Reforms Act. for staying ail proceedings in the appeal pending disposal of the i Liapplication before the Land Reforms Tribunal. The said application was taken up for consideration. The lower 'mg in) C3 appellate Court held that the judgment of the 'dated 17.07.1971 and 08.01.1992 and also the Court. dated 09.03.1988 do not cenfirm. of-.the;
, parties in respect of the suit keeping the appeal before C'o11__1't' ie themflzr; 1- directed . - ,._.. _L. _. - .._.Lr c__ee b__e__ the application_Ai--.A.. 1?. the clilected to put forth thei1_'_ cetse !?§?el'ethisvl1'1ibunal for redzessal. 2 hit ~ Aggrieved by this jt1dg1l:t_ent'theee twfo appeals ave filed. ., V.' Counsel appearing for the appellants . " thecasesyllshhmit that all the properties which are the ~:=t:bje.§t¢.,.'..t.te.-_1_f t..- st.-- 9.... 11_t Le s1__jeet maffj __f t_11__ncy r":"sed lt:ft'j*--"e th'* Tnbtmal Set."*ndl" it 'ms ctentefldfl that the '. - 1* .0 1 ... . 191. .1 e.__ _1___ ___ __1___¢ ____'I:___ '___. __1_.__.._'..._. rival. .vP§iI11C3 nave DICE IIIQCPCI [I Ill. .11 ' I1 11%| '1l:1l.ll.l.l.l.l 'occupancy rights before the Tribunal. The tenancy right as such is not in dispute. What is disputed is, is it a joint family property or the tenancy belongs to the applicants exclusively. _ _ I up/' That is a question which the Civil Court can go lower appellate Court committed a serious ermr appreciating the scope of the appeal; the F11? the appeal and its jurisdiction to the' raised for consideration l decree 1' Le Lwer appellate C1011}: _is=en*oneous_and requires to 1 1. . question of law that arise second appeals is:
._ ' lower appellate Court was jushfied -rilfszplisstng the appeal and directing like "par';h'es-._lto~"'llVappmach, the Land Reforms V"1"rr"z;iI)'zm.z;'V_____ atiiuciicnfion of ihe dispute H'.».If-111991:
LlI:.r«.Irhl.r r|..nI II flan nru-Hole: 9"
W, ELI 'II.-I W-'JV-ll .11.- znelatinshzp b..tw__n Le p-_rt1es are not 111 disp'uteL~ The [email protected]€}' '*-entends that A schedule propel we cup family properties. '13 scheciuie properties are self lfiaequisition of the plaintiifs father. The defendants contend that both A and B schedule pmperfies are joint family properties. In B schedule properties. 4 items. Sy.No.80,, 96/ 2. u HZ t I11 238 and 1400 of Bond Village on the tenanted V' In mpect of the said pmpexties, the contesting Form No.7 before the Land Refo1m.s'Tn'b11nolll hmhhhf the Land Reforms Tribunal I Reforms Tiibunal for %"h ~"«'G'=.'.h'.l.l'1«.'i's=:..==."u5'+a-u... l . ehlnuu we ..-..
account of rival ciainnl.' ' as "ch is 1": t. 1T1 dispute. The qtie_stion"that'; is whether the tenancy oil is their exclusive right Vjoint family. In so far as othef':pmpe1tles the Land Reforms Tribunal has no jurlsdiotion dispute between the parties, ie, whether property or self acaquiition of the «.1; .s of tendency is involved. 1:3, 'llhe trial Court on app1eoiation_oi' the oral and on doctilnentaxy evidence on record has held that A schedule and items 7 and 8 of B schedule properties are joint properties in which plasnees have 113:4 share. The trial Court also held that items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6 and 9 of B schednle Mg In) In properties are self acquisitions of that plaintifl's iivhieh the defendants have no It was that. jtldgsnlentu which was challenged by the lower appellate Court understanding that all thelpreperfies 1'.n.a-.e. _f t_._. sI_I_'_, n_..__ -Qn face of it, are the Remaifiin"
properties'. to the first plaintillls The dispute with regard
to these ~l£)§3 --Iesolved by the Court alone and net by the Tribunal. Therefore, the direction issued Court to the parties to resolve the it it " to these properties before the Land cannot be sustained and is liable to be set. in so far as the four items of the properties as set lfiout earlier, whether the said land is a tenanted land or not, is not in dispute; It is only the Land Tribunal which has 11 'AZ . .
1-9 .35 exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said questign} the Land Reforms Tribunal as well as the jurisdiction to decide whether it belongs fajmiigr 5;. belongs exclusively to the applicaiut. "
1113': instance did not go that q_ueafi§3;1;':..;'fiieIé is no
1.ll\.uF8I..Il«l'-II-I-\-vi-I-.I. 47.'!-I "mm 1' 'Hm for the *.'.'.-'W31 Cevivff * ' 'l'-aa1d_d 1. .. ti :1:
the Civil C--art 11- '---V-~--~4=-.-~'-«L-a--- c';-'&L-+-%¥a+*-- --- «~'r-- --«ma-.er thc said pm-pertya or self acquisitio1___1,~ 'aiidicated its jurisdiction in waaiaing its hands by sending the Tiibunal. This approach is totally dealt by this Court. in the case of xanucmmn as omms Va.
M xvnvcnaxan & __----- ....----.__ wi in 1: mm mg: .3355. Under these " - t -*1'. dec'-:.'-==- af th law.-:r appelhta Via illegai and Iequizes to be set aside. Hence, I pass the V' order.
no 'Ln mmanded to the lower appellate Court with a the lower appellate Court to restore R.A.No.202/ to file and decide the claim of all theparties 'pitselir;¢ii:.é.;~and accordance with law.
It is made clear that 3, 4,' V5 and 6 of B schedule jienantedi and no question of tenancy is of the remaining properties. and 6, theme is no dispute a tenanted property, but the dispute}; is that of joint fannl. 'y or it V the fact that applications are pending ,' Reforms Tribtmal. The lower appellate Court "the said question and once that question is "the occupancy right yanted by the Land Reforms V " would enure to the persons who are successful in the 21/o l suit.
As the suit is of the year 1969 and a have lapsed, the mm Court is directed to as on priority basis, hear the appe§fl""on ijeeis j dispose of the appeal before the to despatoh to the lower appellate C1-:iu1:.5fo:.~;*o - if; V Sd/3 Tudge