Karnataka High Court
Sri.Venkatappa S/O Byrappa vs Smt.Ramakka W/O Late Narayanappa on 20 October, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
EN THE mos COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANsA1t;oR£«';_0~~V_v DATED THES THE 20?" DAY 01%' oc*roBEI~§--:>;:oi'oVw'.' _ BEFORE THE HOMBLE MRJUSTICE A§:AN:pas*YR§REoo&* T Regular Second Appeal No. of Between: 0 0 I 0 Sri. Venkatappa. S/o Byrappa, V H Aged about 60 yea._rs, i . Residing at Gvarldi-nagar,€ A V Samandur;"F'oSt.s " A Anekal 2 4' 'g . Bangalorev I)_istric"t:::A.--» 1 5.32 -_1'o3;~ . ..Appellar1t (By Shri, es Advocate] And= V' A _____ .. e ._ .W/,o Late Narayanappa, _Nla_jor._"-._ l ~ Residing "'ihir11masandra Village, Sarnandurdlffost, Aneka1"T altik, Bangalore District -- 562 103. ..Respondent
t,(E3y Shri. K.V. Lakshminarasimhan, Advocate) This regular second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1.908 against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2009 passed in Vl;)/ :2 ('U R.A.No.35/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge ~(:s;<bn) and JMFC, Anekal, dismissing the confirming the judgment and decree dateei:4_ passed in O.S.No.61/1982 on t1*ie_ file'.'of"t-Flt'.l:'ri:1cip.aI' Civil Judge (Jr.Dn). Anekal. This appeal Corning on"for Ad:@'iissiori,vltiéi's~.gfay, thef' Court delivered the foiiowingi' pp ,;e.im_aMeEJr_t This appeal coming considered for final disposg. "
The' ,iqg.1e.stion of law that may arise for _consi'deration7-,_is';"E whether in the admitted '~ _ circftirn-stances,l'th'e"pVroceedings under the Land Reforms been initiated by the appellant and having been granted. which however, is thesubject matter of an appeal pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, the prohibition _,,_.1ir).der Section 133 not being made applicable, to the suit initiated by the respondent for declaration and 3 injunction which was decreed in his favour and the same having attained finality by recourse to a further appeal to the lower appeilate court and the sought to be questioned in this appeal wouidll a substantial question of law. fl'he"qt1estio;n 9 the civil court could have he'ld:'*.the * whether the appellant Was""ar'*tenant" the' suit property in the riegatifiy; the lvduevstion was squarely before the appeal which is yegtutol filed by the respondent herein; ' pg "substantial question of law sought to ubevraised'; would have to be answered in the .neigati'{é'e, ~__The civil court could not have assumed .jurisdi.cti.o11,Al.in-"answering the question of tenancy under the L.=;ftridu,fA«:""PAleforms Act. The same was the subject mtatter' if of a pending appeal before the Appellate l "'._l'l'I'ii:5unal. The appeal to that extent stands allowed. The if V' "judgment and decree in favour of the respondent is however not disturbed. The same shall. however, be subject to the result of the appeal pending'..bé§i'($§C.a:'the Karnataka Appeliate Tribunal. With the appeal stands disposed of. '_ Pmg/