Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

W12...

Judge was not justified in hokiing flaiaf «_1z§.3:1d_;:*,' W38 ' :

ofwhich occupancy Iighi[c"la:'3aaed Wefe__n;0_i; 31361 the entries in the revenue chtviearly lands were agriculturai lands ; ' t1ierefore',' ' pmsiimption had to be drawn and no §1§a*Jn on the basis of the spot inspeeiioxy 1.3g1:;:c n "c1ecis7x>n of the Hozfble Sugieifie NANJAPPA vs. MATAI}'§__£}ASAI;*§P5E.;::§;g.: AER sew 2542) and also c1seic_§isi<;;3;;A _ BYRAPPA vs. STATE OF' KARNATAKA (19$ Qhemia it is held ma: Tribuna} has it)' rancid' é'~ai{3_gej:'1ce iz1 accordancewith Rule 3.7 of the V. fizaajijsglso upon the decision of ibis court in vs. SHIVAPPA (ILR 1988 KAR 733) _ wheieirz that suit cannot be disposed of when the "'«__VvVq1;estio§i1ve«f tenancy is raised and question of tenancy has to V' vdeéiaed by the Land Tribunal.