Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

3. One person by name Sri Koraga Poojary was the father of plaintiffs and grand father of the defendants 2 to 7 and father-in-law of the first defendant. The said Koraga Poojary had one more son by name Naranappa, the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 7. According to the plaintiffs, the said Koraga Poojary had taken the schedule agricultural lands on tenancy and was in possession of the same till his death in 1959. The tenancy, according to the plaintiffs, devolved upon the plaintiffs, Late Naranappa and their mother Thirumale Hengasu. Late Naranappa is stated to have filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of all the eight (8) items of lands before the Land Tribunal at Mangalore as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amended) Act-1974 which came into effect from 01.03.1974. According to the plaintiffs, the application filed in Form No.7 by Naranappa was for and on behalf of the Joint family consisting of the plaintiffs, deceased Naranappa and their mother Thirmale Hengasu.

21. Apart from this, DW1 has admitted that plaintiff, Smt.Mohini has constructed a house in the suit property. It is not the case of DW1 that Koraga Poojary was not cultivating the suit lands, but other lands. In regard to the dismissal of the application filed by Thirumale, DW1 has feigned ignorance about the basis on which she had sought occupancy right. What is deposed by DW1 is that Thirumale Hengsu did not find any necessity to pursue the application filed by her in Form No.7 since there were grown up children in the house. Taking into consideration the totality of the case, the first appellate court has come to the conclusion that Naranappa had not taken the lands on tenancy basis but it was Koraga Poojary who was the tenant and tenancy devolved on his children in 1959 when he passed away.