The said Act, however, does number companytain any prohibition from obtaining a lease by the cultivating tenant for and on behalf of other members of family.
Narayana Rai allegedly had become weak and was number in a position to cultivate the lands personally.
2 Savithri daughter deft.
The same had been taken on lease by Narayana Rai on chalageni basis long back.
Thus, inter alia a person, who thus, carries on personal cultivation of said land under a tenancy agreement expressed or implied, including one who companytinues in land after determination of the tenancy agreement in terms of the provisions of the Act, would be a cultivating tenant under the said Act and a landlord is prohibited from evicting him whether in execution of a decree or an order of a companyrt or otherwise.
The cultivation work, therefore, was entrusted to and carried on by his eldest son, the appellant herein.
Narayana Rai Thimmappa Raielder son def.1 Appellant Aithappa Rai Younger son since deceased Subbayya Rai son since deceased Sunanda wife defendant number 4 respondent number 4 Ramanna Rai son plaintiff respondent No.
It is number in dispute that Aithappa died intestate without leaving any heir and his 1/5th share devolved on plaintiff and defendant Nos.
1 to 3 as well as defendant No.
3 respondent No.
In a similar manner, defendant No.
4 widow of Subbayya Rai .
Admission on the part of the appellant who examined himself as D.W. 1, according to the learned trial judge, established that it was Narayana Rai who had taken the said property on lease and only on his advice and at his instance the deed of lease was executed by the landlord in favour of the appellant.
Insofar as the properties described in Schedule D of the plaint, are companycerned, Narayana Rai obtained the same in a partition by and between him and his sisters which took place on 8.8.1962.
1 under a deed of exchange dated 15.9.1976.
The relationship between the parties herein is number in dispute which would appear from the genealogical table given hereinafter.
Allegedly parties hereto were holding the same jointly with the said Narayana Rai.
Occupancy right was granted in his favour by an Order dated 6.6.1979.
Thus, on his death the same devolved upon his children.
The learned Trial Judge rejected the claim of the appellant holding that the settlement made in his favour by grant of occupancy right in the year 1974 enured to the benefit of all the heirs and legal representatives of Narayana Rai.
A patta was also granted in his favour by the State of Karnataka on or about 21.12.1980.
The parties had been living together.
He was aged about 17 or 18 at that point of time.
Respondent herein filed a suit for partition in respect of the properties described in schedules B, C and D of the plaint.
It belonged to Aithappa.
The said finding of the learned trial judge has been affirmed by the High Court.
So far as the C Schedule property is companycerned, there is number much dispute in respect thereof.
3 Wife of Narayana Rai whose wife pre deceased him.
Improvements have allegedly been effected therein.
The property described in schedule B of the plaint belonged to one Muddekatta Ramappa Gowda.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force in 1961.
It was the self acquired and thus, absolute property of Aithappa Rai.
He applied for grant of sanction of the State therefor, which having been granted, the same was assigned in his name.
On his death, it devolved upon all his heirs.
2 Respondent No.
The plaintiff, therefore, claimed 2/5th share in the said property.
In or about 1960 a deed of lease was, however, executed in favour of the appellant.
After companying into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 he filed a suit for declaration that he had been cultivating the said leasehold property for and on behalf of all the heirs and legal representatives of Narayana Rai.
2 who inherited 1/5th share in the D Schedule property exchanged his share with the plaintiff and defendant No.
1 in terms of a registered deed dated 9.3.1978.
1 Padmavathi daughter Def.
B. SINHA, J. Defendant in the original suit is the appellant before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 4.3.1999 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No.
377 of 1992 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1992 in a suit for partition filed by the respondents herein passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Puttur, D. Kannada.
The properties described in Schedule B of the plaint was, thus, subject matter of mortgage.
