Karnataka High Court
K. Ravindranatha Shetty And Anr. vs Smt. Maire Hengasu And Anr. on 26 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: ILR2004KAR1615, 2004(5)KARLJ569, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1506
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
ORDER Nayak, J.
1. C.R.P.No. 3852 of 2000 filed by the owner of the land in question is directed against the order dated 24.07.2000 passed on I.A. NO.XI on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, in O.S. No. 441 of 1993, whereas C.R.P No. 3877 of 2000 preferred by the tenant of the land in question is directed against the order of the same Court dated 20.09.2000 on I.A.NO.XII in the Same suit. O.S. No. 441 of 1993 instituted by the owner of the land in question for bare permanent injunction against the tenant. In the said suit I.A.No. XI was filed by the tenant requesting the Court below to frame an issue relating to tenancy. The Court below, by its order dated 24.07.2000 has framed an issue relating to tenancy. Being aggrieved by the said order, the owner has preferred C. R.P. No. 3852 of 2000. LA. No. XII was filed by the tenant requesting the Court below to refer the tenancy issue to the land Tribunal under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, KLR Act) and that application was dismissed by the Court below. Hence the tenant has filed CRP No. 3877 of 2000.
2. When the above two revision petitions came up before a learned Singe Judge Of this Court for hearing, the learned Single Judge having noticed the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MALLAYYA MURIGAYYA v. PUTTAPPA SHIVAPPA, 1976(1)Kar.LJ 369 and also the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of B.V. Subbachari v. B.K. Joyappa, and disagreeing with the opinion of the Division Bench and agreeing with the opinion of the learned Single Judge, and having opined that the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in MALLAYYA MURIGAYYA's case (Supral) requires reconsideration, referred these CRPs to the Division Bench. As directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, these CRPs are placed before us for hearing and disposal.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the reference order of the learned Single Judge. With utmost respect, if we may say so, the reference order itself in not in order and misconceived. Reference order discloses that the learned Single Judge was appraised of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in MALLAYYA MURIGAYYA's case (Supra). That judgment is an authority to state that in a suit, if an issue of tenancy is raised by the defendant, such issue should necessarily be referred to the Land Tribunal as required under Section 133 of the KLR Act. Having noticed the Judgment of the Division Bench, but placing reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of B.V. SUBBACHARI(Supra), which judgment is ex-facie contrary to the Judgment of the Division Bench, the learned Judge ought not to have referred these CRPs to the Division Bench. Propriety requires that a learned Single Judge of this Court cannot question or differ with an opinion of a Division Bench or a Larger Bench of this Court unless he is of the opinion that such opinion is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court.
4. This takes us to the merit of the matter. The question that arises for decision-making in both the petitions is clearly covered by umpteen number of judgments of this Court. The judgment of the Division Bench in MALLAYYA MURIGAYYA's case (Supra) holds the field till date. The said opinion of the Division Bench was subsequently reinforced by Full Bench of this Court in the case of KORAGA MARAKALA AND ANOTHER v. SMT. KAMALA AND ORS. 1988(1) KAR.L.J 34 In the full Bench Judgment, in unmistakable terms, the Court has held that in a suit, if defendant pleads tenancy, issue relating to tenancy should be referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 133 of the KLR Act for its opinion.
5. In the light of the declaration of law in MALLAYYA MURIGAYYA's case (Supra) and KORAGA MARAKALA AND ANOTHER (supra) (FB), the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of B.V. SUBBACHARI (Supra) is liable to be overruled being in direct conflict with the judgments of the Division Bench and Full Bench. We, accordingly, overrule that judgment. It was brought to our notice by the learned Counsel at the Bar that some other learned Single Judges have also opined on par with the view of the learned Single Judge in the case of B.V.SUBBACHARI (Supra) and contrary to the law declared by this Court in MALLAYYA MURIGAYYA's case (Supra) and in the case of KORAGA MARAKALA (Supra). If that is so, it is trite, all such judgments of learned Single Judges are not good law and we hold accordingly.
6. In the light of the law noticed above, no exception can be taken to the action of the Civil Court in so far it has framed the issue relating to tenancy. That is in consonance with the law declared by the Division and Full Benches of this Court. However, we cannot sustain the order made by the Civil Court on I.A.XII. In terms of the law declared by this Court, the Civil Court ought to have referred the tenancy issue to the Land Tribunal under Section 133 of the KLR Act.
7. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss C.R.P.No. 3852 of 2000 and allow C.R.P No. 3877 of 2000 and set aside the impugned order made on I.A.No. XII and allow I.A.No. XII as prayed for and direct the Court below to refer the tenancy issue to the jurisdictional Land Tribunal. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.