Karnataka High Court
Jnanachandra Kuloor vs Seethu Hengsu on 17 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: ILR1995KAR2823, 1995(4)KARLJ156
Author: M.B. Vishwanath
Bench: M.B. Vishwanath
ORDER Vishwanath, J.
1. Heard the teamed Counsel for the parties.
2. In this Revision Petition the order dated 28.11.1992 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Buntwal, on I.A.No. XVII in O.S.No. 146 of 1980 has been challenged. The learned Munsiff observing that the suit should be stayed till the disposal of C.P.No. 3073 of 1991 involving tenancy in respect of Survey No. 59/11 of Sangabettu Village by this Court allowed the application, i.e., I.A.No. XVII, filed under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and stayed further proceedings in the suit pending disposal of the Civil Petition.
3. The facts are: Original Suit No. 146 of 1980 has been filed by Jwalini Amma and others against the respondent/Defendant No. 1 and others for permanent injunction in respect of various lands. So far as Survey Nos. 59/11 and 6A are concerned the plaintiffs have sought mandatory injunction to restore the channel existed in those survey numbers to its original condition on the ground that it has been spoiled by Defendant No. 1 and others. In the suit I.A.No. XVII has been filed by the respondent/Defendant No. 1 under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to stay further proceedings in the suit. The learned Munsiff, as already stated above, allowed the application and stayed further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the Civil Petition by this Court.
4. Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act says that no Civil or Criminal Court or Officer or Authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land decide the question whether such land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land.
5. In the instant case no agricultural land or tenancy of the land is involved. In fact, the learned Counsel for the Revision petitioners concede that there is no dispute regarding the tenancy of the respondent in respect of Survey No. 59/11 and that occupancy rights have been granted to the respondent in respect of Survey No. 59/11. However, the occupancy rights granted to the respondents are subject to 'mamool rigts'. The Revision petitioners pray for mandatory injunction in respect of the channel which runs, among other survey numbers, through Survey No. 59/11 and 59/6A (Survey No. 59/6A is not involved in any tenancy). As already stated the Revision petitioners concede the tenancy of the respondent in respect of Survey No. 59/11. No question of tenancy arises in this case.
6. When, in the nature of the relief claimed for (mandatory injunction), tenancy is not at all involved, the learned Munsiff has committed a serious error in staying further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the Civil Petition by this Court. The suit is of the year 1980. For one reason or other the suit has been hanging fire since then.
7. For the aforesaid 'reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No. XVII stands dismissed.