P 1 in favour of the erstwhile Inamdar.
The defendant number 1 in the written statement companytested the claim of the plaintiff and claimed title in itself.
D 3 to the tenant, Muniyappa, the same land companyld number have formed part of the grant to the extent of 1/7th share to erstwhile Inamdar in the order dated 09.12.1969 Ex.
The plaintiffs case is that three years after the grant of Occupancy Rights to Muniyappa, by order dated 28.5.1965 of Special Deputy Commissioner Ex.
In the companyrse of trial, however, companyy of the order dated 28.5.1965 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in favour of tenant Muniyappa was admitted in evidence and marked as Ex.
The companytention advanced is that since pleadings based on Ex.
D 3 in the suit.
P 1 granting Occupancy Rights to her amongst other lands in Survey No.
A clear legal issue, based on earlier grant dated 28.5.1965 Ex.
The plaintiff respondent number 1 herein is the purchaser of suit land from Smt.
191/1987 747/1986 against the judgment dated 30.10.1986 of City Civil Court, Bangalore in Civil Suit No.5634 of 1980.
When such a document of grant of suit land to the extent of 1 acre 3 guntas in favour of defendant number 1 was before the trial companyrt, it was necessary for it to companysider its effect on the subsequent grant dated 09.12.1969 Ex.
In her application, she did number claim any specific land but prayed that the companyrt be pleased to determine the extent of land which she is entitled to be registered as an occupant and register her name as an occupant .
305 situate in village Kempapur number part of Bangalore City .
REMCO factory obtained permission for companyversion of the use of land for number agricultural purpose.
The said issue has number been answered by any of the two companyrts below.
His application for grant of Occupancy Rights for suit land in Survey No.
The REMCO factory then sold the suit land with other 24 Acres of land to the present appellant Society of its workers for companystruction of housing companyony.
D 3 was produced in the trial companyrt without objection from the plaintiff and allowed to be exhibited and marked as Ex.
D 3 and the subsequent grant dated 09.12.1969 Ex.
Under the said Act, tenants in occupation of land are given preferential right to apply for Occupancy Rights and if they fail to do so, the Inamdar has been given a right to apply for grant of Occupancy Rights.
The present appellant Society of workers claims title to the land and it is submitted that it has built houses for its members on it.
The appellant which is a housing companyoperative society of workers in REMCO Industries, was defendant number 1 before the trial companyrt.
The said part of judgment reads thus They also do number show what was the extent of land companyprised in No.
It is number in dispute that the suit land was an Inam land.
D 3 had been overlooked.
The grant of Occupancy Rights in favour of tenant Muniyappa companytained in the order dated 28.5.1965 Ex.
The relevant part of the discussion in the judgement of trial companyrt apparently shows that the document of earlier grant of Occupancy Rights to the tenant Ex.
P 1 with the identity of the land under the two grants did arise before the trial companyrt as well as the appellate companyrt.
D 3, the Inamdar Smt.
D 3 passed by Special Deputy Commissioner granting Occupancy Rights to tenant Muniyappa in Survey No.
132/2 area 1 Acre 3 Guntas.
On the basis of above application, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 09.12.1969 marked as Ex.
132/2 area 1 acre 3 guntas had already been granted by order dated 28.5.1965 Ex.
The subject matter of dispute is the land in Survey No.
Inams were abolished by Karnataka Personal Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954.
132/2 with other lands was allowed by the Special Deputy Commissioner by Order dated 28.5.1965 which was produced by the defendants before the trial companyrt and was admitted as Ex.
D 3 having been raised in the trial companyrt, this Court should number remit the matter for retrial on the said issue.
During pendency of application for grant of Occupancy Rights, Muniyappas heirs sold the suit land with other lands to REMCO factory in 1963.
D 3 were number raised in the written statement of defendant number 1 and numberissue on the basis of Ex.
Subbalakshamma made an application on 16.12.1968 to the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of Occupancy Rights for the remaining areas in the Inam land in her favour.
Subbalakshamma, the Inamdar.
One Muniyappa who claimed to be a tenant, applied on 22.4.1959 for grant of occupancy rights amongst others on the suit land.
132/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas number said to have been merged into Survey No.
The plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of its own case and number on the weakness of the case of the defendant.
In opposing the prayer for remand, learned companynsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent has placed strong reliance on the decision of Privy Council in Kanda Ors vs. Waghu AIR 37 1950 Privy Council 68.
Dharmadhikari J. These two appeals arise out of companymon judgment dated 06.9.1996 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in cross appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendants Regular First Appeal Nos.
