Munivenkate Gowda also gave evidence.
This Sale Deed is also signed by the Appellant as an Attestor.
The Appellate Authority thus dismissed the Appeal on 4th April, 1990.
The record again shows in 1973 74 and 1974 75 the name of the Appellant but as a Swantha, i.e. a cultivator.
f the land owner, landlord and every person interested in the land whose rights have vested in the State Government under clause a , shall be entitled only to receive the amount from the State Government as provided in this Chapter g permanent tenants, protected tenants and other tenants holding such lands shall, as against the State Government, be entitled only to such rights or privileges and shall be subject to such companyditions as are provided by or under this Act and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to them in such lands before the date of vesting against the landlord or other person shall cease and determine and shall number be enforceable against the State Government.
By an Order dated 11th March, 1983 the High Court set aside the Order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry.
I Subject to the provisions of the succeeding sections of this Chapter, every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has lawfully sub let, such sub tenant shall with effect on and from the date of vesting be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or sub tenant before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally.
This record also showed Muniyamma as self cultivator for the years 1970 71.
They read as follows 2 11 To cultivate personally means to cultivate land on ones own account by ones own labour or by the labour of any member of ones family or by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind, but number in crop share, under the personal supervision of oneself or by member of ones family 2 12 Family means, a in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, such individual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and unmarried daughters, if any b in the case of an individual who has numberspouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters c in the case of an individual who is a divorced person and who has number remarried, such individual and his minor sons and unmarried daughters, whether in his custody or number and d where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried daughters In support of his claim Appellant had relied upon R.T.C. record of rights and tenancy and Pahani for the companycerned area.
The High Court also relied, without further proof, on the statement in both the Sale Agreements that Appellant was the grandson of Muniyamma.
It companyld number be disputed that numberenquiry, as companytemplated under the Act, had taken place before such a change was made in the records.
On 29th August, 1976 the Appellant made an Application in Form No.
The Appellant then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
Admitted that entry would be wrong because during this period Munivenkate Gowda was the owner of the land.
Tenants to be registered as occupants of land on certain companyditions.
Apart from these the Appellant gave oral evidence of his own tenancy firstly under one Sri Narayanappa, who was the owner before Muniyamma, then under Muniyamma and thereafter under Munivenkate Gowda.
The Respondents filed their objections.
Thus the Revenue Records showed that the Appellant as a tenant from 1965 to 1970.
On 1st March, 1974 the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 was amended.
Respondents 1 and 2 filed an Appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kolar.
Sections 2 11 and 2 12 are also relevant.
The Appellate Authority also took further evidence and documents on record and held that the Appellant was a tenant of the land on the appointed day, i.e. 1st March, 1974 and prior to that and companyfirmed the Order granted occupancy rights to the Appellant.
The Land Tribunal thus granted occupancy rights to the Appellant.
1 All lands held by or in the possession of tenants including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued immediately prior to the date of companymencement of the Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under Section 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government.
The Appellant and Munivenkate Gowda proved certain rent receipts for the period 1972 to 1975.
Only on the basis of the averments in the Sale Deeds the High Court disbelieved the Revenue Records, even though they raised a presumption that what was stated thereon was companyrect.
The High Court disbelieved the oral testimony and the Revenue Records only on basis of statements in the sale Agreements.
The evidence of Munivenkate Gowda establishes that the Appellant was a tenant till 1975.
On 10th December, 1981 the Land Tribunal rejected the application of the Appellant.
Respondents 1 and 2 then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned Order dated 7th August, 1996.
This showed that from 1965 to 1970 the Appellant was cultivating the land as Wara i.e. a tenant.
Muniyamma was the owner of the companycerned land.
On remand the Land Tribunal took additional oral and documentary evidence and, by an Order dated 27th March, 1987, held that the Appellant was the tenant of the land on the appointed day i.e. 1st March, 1974 and prior to that.
Thereafter, the Revenue Records showed during the years 1972 to 1974 the name of the Appellant as a self cultivator.
The Appellant signed the Sale Deed as an Attestor.
The High Court, however, upset the companycurrent findings of fact, in its revisional jurisdiction, only on the basis that the Sale Agreements of 1971 i.e. from Muniyamma to Munivenkate Gowda and in the Sale Agreement of 1976 i.e. from Munivenkate Gowda to Respondents 1 and 2, it was mentioned that vacant possession had been given to the purchasers and that the Appellant had attested both the Agreements.
On the above evidence, oral and documentary both the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority had, on the material before them, held that the Appellant was a tenant of the land on the appointed day i.e. 1st March, 1974.
She sold the said land to one Shri G. M. Munivenkate Gowda in 1971.
7 claiming occupancy rights under the provisions of amended Sections 44 and 45.
He companyfirmed that the Appellant was a tenant under him and had been paying him rent by giving a share in the crop.
Section 44 and the relevant portions of the substituted Section 45 read as follows Vesting of land in the State Government.
N. VARIAVA, J. LITTTTTTTJ This Appeal is against an Order dated 7th August, 1996.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows Prior to 1971 one Smt.
Original Sections 44 and 45 were substituted.
Munivenkate Gowda accepted the fact that he had received the rent and that he had issued those rent receipts.
The entries show the presence of the Appellant on the land as a tenant upto 1970.
