Verupegowda S/O Basavegowda vs Shankaregowda S/O Basavegowda on 14 November, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

Verupegowda S/O Basavegowda vs Shankaregowda S/O Basavegowda on 14 November, 2008

Equivalent citations: 2009 (4) AIR KAR R 38

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 

IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA AT BAN§A§!.Q(§§EV:,. u

DATED 'nus THE 14*" DAY or NOVEMBEF?«;209T3V"  x 

serene   

"ms HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. \.I'E;'A!'?.%§l¢A.A(_'.%ii-"vI1\L!5L'$§GWDﬁD--:7..:,D':V':~

REGULAR secoma AWZEADL m5;1o%e?12%no2'DD  
asrweeu:    " 

1 VERUPEGOWDA 5/0 x  k
moon, R/0F.VERUPAYAﬂ&!(OPPA'LL£ 1 _ 

HANIKE POST, BELLPR "'?'ALL3K;  _ _

2 RA3EGO_W'.DA;'3/Q aAsA1IEG<_)wDA V
MAJOR,' R,';3F.VER1JPA}'A_NAK«DPPAi.U
aauxxeyusxf, sews rawx;  ~

 %%%% _      APPELLANTS

(av Sriis. 'S'HEk}R§ sax. s. mu FOR
M/S. REDIW mp P.AﬂJ4VASS£}CIA'TES)

AND :

 '~  11 'sHMxAaEéOwa:q*s/o BASAVEGOWDA

 ~ ;jAn'IKE POST. BELUR TALUK.

 .~aA3:>;2_ 
 " nR/D.F.VIR1)PAYANAK0PPALU
  PGST, BELUR TALUK.

2 D *-..4_D(2H_A.§wiDR4S'1$HEKHARA s/0 BASAVEGOWDA
is-!AJ*{)R'
R/"a.F;vImJ9AvAuAxoPPAw

 RESPONDENTS

D (aw; sax. 3 cnmomsuemmmn son C/R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTIDN 100 OF CPC ~ LDVAGAINST THE MDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 19.7.92 PASSED vitiated on account of nomcortsideration evidence, such as Exs.P2 to P6 and P13 and"$l.rrcef'_.th:ere wholly erroneous approach tofti1e"emetter'-_.AV:"gthe.,V:,"iegoi evidence may be re-appreciated to4'co'ﬁsider :§ubsQt'ountlei'*v, i question of law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the If' ﬁat, on material aspects of ﬁndings by the Courts below, echedule properties are not join: or the parties, but is the propertlr'o_fd'the'iéfdefendent. He contended that, perusal of E;x.1D;/Polo...'_gn'owe" that, the occupancy rights was I 'i it ""orderaed"-"to flee regietered in favour of the 1" defendant, remained unchallenged. He contendm thot,__V plV_ointlil*fS being not rival applicants for grant of ""'-'~.,_""occupa"nc=':y rights and the order granting occupancy nabs Ex.D1/P10 in the name of the 1" defendant, having . ettalned finality, cannot be indirectly questioned in the v Civtl Court which has no jurisdiction tidecide, whether, /3', (9) (31) The plaintiffs did not cite any show that the previous cuittvetion t of the plaintiffs and been taken into oonsidetetion whﬁe. oonferitnq the rights; _ _ '_ I In View of Act, Hpromrty was not joint on 1.3.1974 i.e.§,-- cntoming fotoe."of..t.he'Ad; ordered In favour "of that the property was not the 1" defendant on behalf of the ;cm:em::y;et E-)§.?1AAd"'eu«ows that the Land Tribune: has the occupancy rights exclusively to 1"

_A.'defendant and that there is no discussion 2 ~~ therein regarding the tenancy of joint family or granting of occupancy rights to the joint E ./V famliy.

21.12.1976 was filed by the 12 defende.nt.'.'_A»eI§;i§§1§:ee occupancy rights in respect of the suit hntwhhithdb were cuitivated from the time of hlSd'Fether;1'AA'¢dEtte:nfS__e'iT' Form 7 filed by the 1" defendant ehews theTt,--".t_the Faniglddiseehe, been under the cultivation tenaf:t.V1fi:>:':.V-Zthei pest 15 years, from the timed b~t_'_his'.'*fa'the§f.2 Vi?-'he made therein reads as foltowsﬁdh 'L ' ' easmassad assaeaepaas we ""

mm rtesézzad-"awn zen: .

ma 196ldQ nexus amass:

edeape 6! 2.19.3303: «mime * ~ mo hhhhh . sass, socsoeaszs sweats V The"-«tconteetien of 1" defendant before the Trial Court, %"ddd'fr2¢ticed at the Trial Court at were 11 of its Judgment, Is f:"e.Ise.;teIevant to be noticed and the same reads thus;

11. The contention of the learned Advocate fer the defendant Is that even though his father was the tenant for number of years prior to filing the appllﬁtion by the /,4 by Basaveaowda as a tenant. The said V. presumption under Section 133 of the Karneizakedri Revenue Act, uniws rebutted. It Knot,ceveeV'Vof_the1'«'1'*: V defendant that, the entries incorrect. Even the RTC's todhe. "atone 'V V with IA.3 In the first Apodlate*--€.o§irt,'*-»for theneriod from 1964~65 onwards aiso' oultivator was Easavegowda end' not Indtsnutabiy, the name of~tiefendfe_nt In the RTC from 1974-75._nn\§a.rds;:'1'onIy,--».jteoth'tézetiourts bdow have not considered of 1" defendant in the Land Tnhiinﬁ v9m¢;,t%, that, the property was _ cultivi§ted*~from said statement was recorded by ~ATr&h:u--nel on 10.8.1981 and the age of the 1"

ddefei-went:"'§;np§ﬁ'n'v..thereIn is 37 years, when related back, H Vt the dﬁr$tv'~--V:defe:ndant was about 13 years old, when he _ ., :31A"-éiuegegilydétarted cultivation by obtaining the tend on twee,

1.'_,'~_nrh.iVVc'h"i's totaﬂy inconceivable. Bang a minor, he could not Vt ':'_,:"i1a've entered into a lease, much less being a manner of " " joint femiiy, cultivatw the Rand indwxndenﬂy and for tanantédvroperty as on 1.3.1974 having been of Basavegowda, father of the parties. v_'a;'v'vt°gr§*anted land as on 1.3.1974, it vested in the A x_of'"$e<:tion 45 and the application ﬂied in Form 7, the tend Vftribunai ordered for registration of occupancy rights under ' Ex.P1/D10, in favour of the 1* defendant, which was after 21 OT!-ERS, reporbd In 1994 AIR SCW S031, lthas~bo§.f asfollows; ' 2 h

5. .... ..This order isgconslsten-t with « 5(3). Therefore, the righ'2.'_"=a!ven "';¢ the, appeliant while making the 'regrant who Aonfy 3, pre-existing right nam_o'i';e..the 'propgrty. attaicheﬁ to the omce and shai{*:;ontinue"*to ea engoyed and belonged to the farniiyond it is .!rr:poé'tible by rule of prfmogeniture; , __ I so cgggltgggs vungg 'Wg hglg mg:

. = svo'~ '- v'

2.r:opor.t!--.ﬁmt .

L.m.." 'E * -'(Emphasis suppiied) The:V$uit~._»'p'roperty being an aqrlcutturol land, Stotevihhhaoﬁernment under Section 44 of the Act. By virtue the partition of the family prooerﬂa «moor Ex.P1 hotween 3, 24 Section 4 of the Act states that, a per5son..',,le1§\n**.:.lly1_ cultivating any iand belonging to another_..;:e§feo_n:eA--:'§halI V. deemed to be a tenant if suchga lanai. 'fab personally by the owner andlf sechVpersenV~l- falling under Clauses (a) to (c)"t't:Vh_"ereln. w Section 2(11) gem dame the word "to cultivate personally" meanaiftov_cuiti_§rate«.,le'nd on one's own account - (ii) la!aotlr' of a;«nyvn'1et'lher of one's family. "deﬂn.es "peﬁﬁanent tenant" means a tenant etho,cultiyates_th.e"land personaily (13) whose name or the name 'vef:V'V--wAh1ouse">lVpredecessor-in-title has been ,_ventered the recoreof rights or in any public record or in "re§zenue"vreco{d as a permanent tenant. In the instant caee,"'narne.7efSasavegowda appears in the record of rights p 'as tene.nt;«:_ As already naticed, the suit lands vested in the "..j$tate'««..on"account of they being, under the cultivation of as on 1.3.1974, the appointed day. The tenant or "tithe permanent tenant, deﬁned under the Act cannot be t given a limited meaning, since, the name of the manager / 27 View of my findings supra on the facts of the case"ja':h§'L:'eiso the law deciared by the Hon'bie Supreme decisions to which, I have aireadY"rh'ede the

23. The Courts beiow.___ ha*ve%not caeeere theta, reievant statutory provisions of' the vesting of the land in the state; Go¥_§;ei;ntnent"en_d its registration thereafter in the name...of_ e The Ceurts beiow havefeisje' not ate the weii settled principies th-e..pa§rtition of the properties heid on "!ease:ejh4:1:eijititieted by the members of the erstwhiieiiijmant.ferniiﬁ, " iaw on the aspect having been we'ii5ese§tieo, h'a"sVno_t_heen noticed and foilewed and hence there --vivs'~a;A§';5e.rent iiiegaiity cemmitted, which calis for i"n£erfefeh?;:e.'A'e:= it "Fear the foregoing discussion and the reasons, the imeiggnied decrees passed by the Courts below cannot be 'stisteined and are iiabie to be set aside. Consequently, the "suit of the plaintiffs is iiabie te bei ecreed. Hence, I pass the following: 'J

i)

iii)

iv) 28 cases Appeal is ailewed;

Judgment and Decree passed in 19.7.2902 by the Additiora;';abiAbVC::i\::!.v 3.udage=.i.:_i(»5_if..£V:>'¥iLVV);"1 Hassan, dismissing the _app.vsai,:"i--s. here.:by"set" a'sid'é.v 'V L Judgment and Decree is Vdafted 2.9.1994 by itiieeé M_uh'sii°Tfﬂ9Vi§d._A 3Mi3C;' Beiur, is hereby set asidé-.. _OSv shall stand z'i'.~tV'is desiasfgﬁbi"t--tj:ét,:'.~~the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4&9 share eiacliifxln the suit schedule properties :,_a.:nd-.§a prsiiminary decree shail be drawn. ._ _ci~AV:*:;t:a;i'r2'zstances of the case, parties are directed V _ to béar théirfespective costs. sal-

'judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court