This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court in a revision petition filed under Section 121 A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act which in turn was directed against the order made by the appellate authority in a proceeding arising under the Act for registration of the occupancy rights in respect of 4 acres 38 guntas in Survey No.
In the year 1947, the said Doddamani filed an application under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debts Relief Act companytending that the sale deed executed in favour of Chabbi was in the nature of mortgage and number a sale.
He has strongly placed reliance on a decision of this Court in A.A. Shirdone v. Saheb H. Tajbhokhari, inasmuch as the respondent had number filed the application for declaration before the Mamlatdar that the respondent was number a tenant within one year after the Act companying into force and his possession is protected.
This was affirmed by the District Judge and ultimately by the High Court holding that the sale deed in question was indeed a mortgage.
Doddamani, who has since deceased, executed a sale deed in favour of Chabbi in the year 1939 in respect of the land in question.
The learned Civil Judge JD had declared that the transaction though styled as sale was in the nature of mortgage, and held that till 1946, Chabbi was number in possession of the land.
She made a claim when the new Act came into force for registration of the occupancy rights.
199/2 of Murnal Village in Bagalkot Taluk.
The present appellant became a lessee in the year 1946.
These aspects were duly companysidered by the High Court and rejected.
