Karnataka High Court
Malachira Nanjamma vs Malachira Monnappa on 21 March, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.790 OF 2002
Between:
1. Smt.Malachira Nanjamma
Aged 58 years
W/o Late Malachira Uthaiah
2. Malachira Ganapathi
Aged 38 years
S/o Late Malachira Uthaiah
3. Malachira Chengappa
Aged 31 years
S/o Late Malachira Uthaiah
4. Malachira Akkamma
Aged 36 years
D/o Late Malachira Uthaiah
All are R/o Mugutageri Village
Ponnamet Post, Srimangala Nad
South Kodagu ... Appellants
(By Shri S.G.Bhagavan, Advocate)
And:
1. Malachira Monnappa
S/o Late Subbaiah
Aged 80 years
-2-
2. Malachira Bopanna
Aged 46 years
3. Malachira Appanna
Aged 44 years
4. Malachira Poonacha
Aged 40 years
All are R/o Mugutageri Village
Ponnampet Post
Srimangala Nad
South Kodagu ... Respondents
(By Shri T.A.Karumbaiah, Advocate)
*****
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of
CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2002 passed in
O.S.No.14/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Virajpet, dismissing the suit for partition and separate
possession.
This Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants - plaintiffs.
2. It is to be noticed at the outset and as fairly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants himself that the legal position that would apply, insofar as the present case is concerned, would not permit partition of the land in question. -3-
3. To elaborate, the suit was filed with a prayer for partition by metes and bounds and for ejectment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiff, of the suit property. The suit schedule property was Jamma Bane land and it is the settled legal position as laid down by a Full Bench decision of this Court, on the question, whether the holders of Bane Lands in Coorg upon Jamma tenure, are the owners thereof and has been answered in the negative, holding that the holders of Jamma Bane lands, both privileged and unprivileged, are not full owners thereof but have limited privilege qua these lands, subject to the rider that once these Jamma Bane lands became alienated Bane, the holders of such alienated Bane became entitled to the rights and obligations of occupants of unalienated fully assessed lands and were governed for that purpose by the provisions of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, so long as they held the field and thereafter, they were entitled to the rights and subject to the obligations of the holder and occupant of unalienated fully assessed lands as per the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964. Hence, the same would not be capable of partition. -4-
4. This being the legal position and the same having been reiterated in the case of B.R.SHARATHCHANDRA AND OTHERS vs. K.D.POOVAIAH AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3605, in yet another decision, namely, KURAVANDA NANJAPPA vs. KURAVANDA THIMMAIAH reported in 1963(2) Mys. L.J.486, it has been held that Section 145 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations prohibits division of the joint family properties amongst the members of the Coorg family whether it be partition or other allotment amongst the members of the family. According to the said section a suit for allotment of the joint family properties even for purposes of maintenance, is excluded from the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and Regulation 145 not only prohibited civil suits for partition but also prohibited a division of the joint family properties amongst the members of the Coorg family without recourse to the said Regulations. Hence, it is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Jamma Bane land would go along with wet lands held by the holders and are a privilege attached to the wet lands and may not be -5- partitioned independently of the wet lands and hence, would submit that the issue being debated as to Jamma Bane land continues, even as on today, and agitating for permission to divide such lands are continuing even today, hence the right of the appellant may not be foreclosed and the question be left open, so that the appellant may raise such an issue, if a right should accrue in the future.
5. It is for the appellant to work out his right, if such a right is vested on a future date. The appeal in any event as rightly and as fairly contended by Shri S.G.Bhagawan, the learned counsel for the appellants, would not be maintainable and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AHB