Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Mudakappa vs Rudrappa And Others on 28 September, 1993

Sri Varghese vs Sri Nagu Shetty on 14 June, 2024

"xxx xxx The jurisdiction of a Civil Court to adjudicate upon matters which the Tribunal could have determined under the provisions of the Act aforementioned stands specifically excluded by Section 133(1) of the Act. The question whether the grant of the rights was for benefit of the individuals or the joint family cannot therefore be raised before a Civil Court. We are supported in that view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa reported in AIR 1994 SC 1190. xxx xxx"
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V Srishananda - Full Document

Sri Thomas vs Sri Nagu Shetty on 14 June, 2024

"xxx xxx The jurisdiction of a Civil Court to adjudicate upon matters which the Tribunal could have determined under the provisions of the Act aforementioned stands specifically excluded by Section 133(1) of the Act. The question whether the grant of the rights was for benefit of the individuals or the joint family cannot therefore be raised before a Civil Court. We are supported in that view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa reported in AIR 1994 SC 1190. xxx xxx"
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V Srishananda - Full Document

Ishwaragouda & Ors vs Mallikarjun Gowda & Ors on 7 November, 2008

10. Before we conclude, we may note that as observed herein earlier, the High Court in the earlier Writ Application by its order dated 17th of December, 1982, held on consideration of evidence produced by the parties and materials on record that the disputed land was taken for cultivation jointly by the parties and, therefore, the parties were in joint cultivation. It would be evident from the order of the High Court passed on 17th of December, 1982, that only to demarcate the share of the parties, the matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the question of reopening this issue, namely whether a person is in possession of the disputed 13 land as a personal cultivator, or the disputed land was in joint possession of the family members of the parties, is no longer available to be agitated before the civil court. At the risk of repetition, we may also note that before the Land Tribunal it was conclusively decided that the predecessor-in-title of both the parties had taken the disputed land for cultivation jointly and that they were jointly cultivating the same. That being the position, and in view of Section 133 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil court having been ousted and applying the principles as laid down by this Court in the case of Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa & Ors. (Supra), and Balawwa & Anr. vs. Hasanabi & Ors. (supra), in paragraph no. 7 and 8 of the same, as mentioned herein earlier, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remanding the matter to the same for decision in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Sri Shivappa S/O Goli Patagar vs Smt Lakshmi W/O Venkataraman Patagar on 12 March, 2026

In this case, she relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwaragouda and Others vs. Mallikarjun Gowda and Others2 and Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa and Others3. Learned counsel for appellant would further submit that plaintiff or defendant No.2 never raised objection in granting occupancy rights to defendant No.1. About 40 years after such grant, the plaintiff has filed suit for partition which is not maintainable in law. Learned counsel for appellant further relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nimbavva and others V/s. Channaveerayya and Others4, wherein Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was examined and held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar And ... vs Smt. Shantabai Ramachandra Kuduchakar ... on 17 June, 2004

26. The ratio in Mudakappa's case as held by the Supreme Court is that when rival claims were set up for tenancy rights and entitlement for registration, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to enquire into the dispute and to decide the same in the prescribed manner. A forum is created and the said forum is enjoined to enquire into not only the nature of the land but also entitlement for registration as a tenant. The Civil Court's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC by necessary implication stood excluded to enquire into such disputes. The Civil Court has the power only to decide other issues.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 8 - N Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next