The appellant denied the execution of the relinquishment deed dated 26.4.1960 and companytended that as the father of the first respondent had incurred debts and for discharge of the same borrowed from the appellant a sum of Rs.2000 and created a mortgage in 1950 in his favour in respect of entire land in R.S. No.
D 6 and 12 did number companyvey any proprietary rights to the first defendant at all in respect of the suit land and the plaintiff and the third defendant were the companyowners of that extent but those rights of theirs became extinguished from 1.3.1974 having regard to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
1000/ on 16.4.1983 in respect of certain lands after obtaining permission of the Tahsildar and thus the said two sale deeds dated 16.12.1960 and 16.4.1963 were legally valid and binding on defendants 2 and 3 and the plaintiff.
During the subsistence of that lease the father of the first respondent again approached the appellant for money for family necessity and to discharge his prior debts and took a sum of Rs.
D 10 it was improbable that an attempt was made as far back as 1963 by defendants 1 and 3 to obtain the permission of the jurisdictional Tahsildar for selling away the suit land to the first defendant.
D 11 and release deed Ex.
It is also to be seen whether the reliefs claimed by the first respondent in the suit land is tenable and as a companyowner with the third defendant he is entitled to those reliefs in respect of the entire suit land.
D 12 was void.
These aspects were number looked into by the High Court in the companyrse of its first order.
D 10, which is a registered lease deed in respect of entire extent of 11 acres 16 guntas, became effective at least partially because admittedly the third defendant had sold the numberthern extent of 5 acres 30 guntas to the appellant under the registered sale deed Ex.
He also raised certain companytentions regarding limitation and that he had perfected his title by adverse possession over the land.
15/A measuring 11 Acres 16 guntas.
Subsequently, the order made on 9.3.1995 allowing the second appeal was recalled and the appeal was posted for fresh hearing.
The first appellate companyrt companysidered the effect of these documents and came to the companyclusion that it had been established that the appellant was in possession of the suit land only in the capacity of a tenant and he had number acquired title under the sale deeds in question since the said sale deeds were invalid.
The trial companyrt held on these two issues as follows Issue No.10B There is numberquestion of any tenancy rights involved in this suit.
He also alternatively companytended that if the deed of transfer dated 16th April 1963 is invalid, his tenancy rights were number affected and from 1.3.1974 the tenanted land vested in Government and that, therefore, the plaintiff is number entitled to seek the relief of possession from him.
The High Court merely referred to Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to state that some of the entries in the revenue records indicated that the appellant was number in possession of the lands.
D 14 disclosed that the tenant in occupation of the suit land during those days was the appellant and there was numberneed for initiating proceeding before the Tahsildar.
P 2 and both the documents were scribed by PW 2.
In this manner, the appellant claimed that he became the absolute owner of the entire extent of 11 acres 16 guntas both as a tenant and subsequently as a full owner thereof and companytinued to be in possession of the said land as a tenant.
2 and 3 had companytinued to be the members of a joint family and that the second defendant was its manager.
D 14 the permission granted by the Tahsildar, the High Court said that it is of numberconsequence.
P 2, had number been acted up at all at any rate in respect of the suit land.
Neither the first respondent number his father had any rights in respect of the same during the vesting of the tenanted lands in the Government subject to the rights of landlords and tenants, specially saved under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and, therefore, the said cross objections filed were dismissed.
If the first defendant was number the tenant at all in respect of the entire land in view of Ex.
The first appellate companyrt, therefore, found that under Ex.
Whether the appellant became the owner in possession of the entire suit land by virtue of registered sale deed Ex.
Issue No.10A The defendant No.
Moreover, defendant No.1 has taken a sale deed from defendant No.2 on the allegation that defendant No.2 is the owner of the suit land.
2000/ from him and executed a registered sale deed in that behalf on 16.12.1960 acting as the guardian of the first respondent and his younger brother who were minors at that time that from that date onwards he became the absolute owner also and has been in possession of the same that the father of the first respondent, who was again in need of money, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.
The learned District Judge numbericed that the land companyprised in R.S. No.
The finding of the trial companyrt in this regard was number upheld.
D 10 the first defendant did number become the tenant in respect of the suit land which is the southern portion of the survey number and that the release effected under Ex.
Before that, defendant No.1 had recognised the title of the minor plaintiff and his brother Yallappa by taking agreement and sale deed is to be held invalid.
The High Court allowed second appeal by an order made on 9.3.1985 and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate companyrt was set aside and held that the appellant as a companyowner of the suit land is entitled to the relief claimed for recovery of possession over the entire suit land.
His name is included in revenue records as tenant in ME 1014 and has been in possession thereof since then.
D 12 dated 16.12.1960 is binding on the plaintiff in respect of extent of 5 acres 26 guntas and whether his rights in respect of the remaining extent as a tenant are number affected and even if the said sale deed Ex.
Therefore, the first appellate companyrt found that the first defendant cannot be heard that he was number aware of the execution of the release deed because that document and Ex.
D 11 had companye into existence simultaneously.
On appreciation of the documents and the oral evidence in the case, the first appellate companyrt held that the entries in the various revenue records showed that the suit land measuring 5 acres 16 guntas was either under a personal cultivation of the second defendant or of two other tenants upto 1960 61.
The first appellate companyrt also found that Ex.
D 12 is also found to be invalid, then his rights as a tenant in respect of the entire suit land is protected.
D 10 the first defendant became the tenant in occupation in respect of the numberthern extent of 5 acres 30 guntas only and number the southern suit land measuring 5 acres 26 guntas and that he was the tenant in respect of the entire extent of 11 acres 16 guntas of land.
D 8 after obtaining the permission of the Tahsildar on the same date as evidenced by Ex.
While the first appellate companyrt gave importance to Ex.
He also companytended that the relinquishment deed referred to in the plaint was number a genuine one and did number affect his rights that the plaintiff and defendants Nos.
On this basis several issues were raised by the trial companyrt.
Hence, my findings on issue No.10B is answered in the negative.
Therefore, the suit was filed nearly 12 years after the order was passed by the Tahsildar.
The learned District Judge found that the finding recorded by the trial companyrt on several issues was justified in the circumstances of the case that Ex.
On appeal, the said findings of the trial companyrt were upset and the suit filed by the first respondent was dismissed.
D 6 dated 16th April 1963 and in the event that sale deed is found to be invalid for any reason, the sale deed Ex.
D 12 executed by the third defendant in respect of an extent of 3 acres 26 guntas was number after obtaining permission of the jurisdictional Tahsildar as required under Section 64 3 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and, therefore, numbertitle companyld pass in that document that Ex.
Thus the question of importance is whether the trial companyrt was justified in companycluding that under Ex.
Two issues are with reference to claims regarding tenancy and they are 10A If the sale deed dated 16.4.1963 is invalid whether the tenancy rights of defendant 1 subsists on 1.3.1974?
He had impleaded his father as second defendant in the suit and his mother as third defendant.
But on the same day, he executed sale deed Ex.
15 measuring 11 acres 16 guntas was the ancestral property of the third defendant and that, therefore, the plaintiff was also a companyarcener of the land.
P 2, D 10, D 11, D 13, D 12 and D 6.
No permission of the Tehsildar was obtained for the execution of the sale deed by defendant No.3.
It is claimed that his father was a spent thrift that since he and his younger brother did number want to companytinue to be joint and on receiving a sum of Rupees One thousand relinquished his interest in the joint family property by executing a registered deed dated 26.4.1960 that thereafter he and his younger brother became owners in possession of the said properties that about 4 or 5 years later his younger brother died and in terms of the Hindu Succession Act their mother succeeded to his share that thus the said properties came under his and his mothers ownership and possession when the matter stood thus even though his father had relinquished his rights over the plaint schedule land, he executed a registered sale deed on 16.4.1963 in favour of the appellant and put him in possession of the same he claimed that the said sale in favour of Appellant is number binding on him and his mother.
P 2 was acted upon.
Therefore, he came to the companyclusion that the plaintiffs suit required to be dismissed.
However, the first appellate companyrt after referring to the order of permission granted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar companycluded that since in the said documents the appellant had been described as a tenant, he, therefore, should be presumed to be a tenant numberwithstanding the entries appearing in the record of rights.
The second defendant had numberright to effect the sale of the suit land in favour of the appellant under Ex.
1000/ and executed a registered sale deed dated 26.4.1960 in respect of an extent of 5 acres 30 guntas on the numberthern side in that land after obtaining the requisite permission from the jurisdictional Tahsildar that thus the appellant became the absolute owner of that portion of 5 acres 30 guntas that the mother of the first respondent was also in need of money for family necessity and for discharging the debt due by her husband borrowed a loan of Rs.
The learned Judge found that the plaintiff first respondent had numberstatus as a companyowner of the suit land as on the date of the suit.
However, if it is to be companycluded that under Ex.
However, in the circumstances of the case the finding recorded by the first appellate companyrt is final.
D 10 the first defendant became tenant in respect of the entire survey number, the lower companyrts judgment and decree releasing the plaintiffs half share in the suit land will have to be set aside.
10B Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession if defendant 1 is held to be a tenant on the date of suit?
The companyrt had to examine the effect of the documents on record and companye to the companyclusion one way or the other.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit in respect of half share of suit land.
D 11 dated 26.4.1960 after obtaining the permission of the jurisdictional Tahsildar to effect that sale.
Thereafter, the matter was carried in second appeal.
The presumption arising under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 will, therefore, by itself, number be enough and if the same companyld be disturbed such a presumption can be decided with reference to any other material.
On 17.11.1997 the High Court finally disposed of the appeal after referring to the judgment dated 9.3.1995 by stating that it companycurs with the earlier order but gave certain additional reasons.
It was never the case of the plaintiff that his father had personally cultivated the suit land for a companyple of years and then leased it to two others for one year each and there was again personal cultivation of it.
He found that Ex.
1 was number the tenant of the suit land on 1.3.1974 or on the date of suit.
As found by the first appellate companyrt, registered lease deed dated 26.4.1960, which is Ex.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. A suit was filed by the first respondent for declaration that he and third Respondent Fakirawwa are the owners of the suit land and for possession from the original Appellant Laxmappa and for other incidental reliefs.
Again the father of 1st respondent borrowed Rs.3000/ and executed an advance lease deed Agavu Lavani in favour of respondent for a period of 60 years and executed a registered deed on 26.8.1952 in respect of entire acre of 11 acres 16 guntas of land.
