Supreme Court of India
Yallappa Basappa Googyala 'D' By Lrs. vs Land Tribunal, Bagalkot And Ors. on 16 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: (2000)10SCC569, AIRONLINE 1998 SC 217
Author: S. Rajendra Babu
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu
ORDER
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court in a revision petition filed under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which in turn was directed against the order made by the appellate authority in a proceeding arising under the Act for registration of the occupancy rights in respect of 4 acres 38 guntas in Survey No. 199/2 of Murnal Village in Bagalkot Taluk. Doddamani, who has since deceased, executed a sale deed in favour of Chabbi in the year 1939 in respect of the land in question. In the year 1947, the said Doddamani filed an application under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debts' Relief Act contending that the sale deed executed in favour of Chabbi was in the nature of mortgage and not a sale. The learned Civil Judge (JD) had declared that the transaction though styled as sale was in the nature of mortgage, and held that till 1946, Chabbi was not in possession of the land. This was affirmed by the District Judge and ultimately by the High Court holding that the sale deed in question was indeed a mortgage. The present appellant became a lessee in the year 1946. She made a claim when the new Act came into force for registration of the occupancy rights. The Tribunal as well as the appellate authority constituted under the Act were of the view that obtaining the possession in 1946 by the appellant was not lawful and, therefore, it could not be said that he can be deemed to be a tenant for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act. On that basis it was held that he was not entitled to registration of the occupancy rights in respect of the land and his claim was rejected. The appellate authority affirmed this order and when the matter was carried in revision before the High Court the same order was upheld.
2. Shri Mahale, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sale had been executed in favour of Chabbi by the original owner which was not held to be a mortgage. Since parties acted upon the document as if it was a sale and entered possession, it must be held that the same is lawful for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act and he should be treated as a deemed tenant. He has strongly placed reliance on a decision of this Court in A.A. Shirdone v. Saheb H. Tajbhokhari, inasmuch as the respondent had not filed the application for declaration before the Mamlatdar that the respondent was not a tenant within one year after the Act coming into force and his possession is protected. These aspects were duly considered by the High Court and rejected. It was noticed by the High Court that the effect of this decision was that it is applicable only if the appellant was a tenant in respect of the land. The trapiaction between Chabbi and the respondent was one of mortgage without possession and hence no tenancy rights could be created. It is also on record that interest was paid by the respondent, which when allegedly was not paid, possession of land was taken by Chabbi. Since possession is not lawful the appellant having obtained possession in those circumstances cannot be treated as a tenant. The view of the High Court is, therefore, correct. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.