(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant laid the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent's uncles from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property. The trial court by its judgment dated November 30, 1973 dismissed the suit. Pending appeal, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1 of 1974 came into force making extensive amendments to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 for short 'the Act'. Section 45A conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal constituted under the Act to decide the question of tenancy and nature of the agricultural land and the Civil Court was directed under S. 133 to make a reference calling for a report from the Tribunal and on receipt thereof to decide the other questions in the suit. The learned District Judge by his order referred the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the tenancy was in favour of the joint family and not to the appellant. Based thereon the District Judge dismissed the appeal. In the Misc. Second Appeal No. 97 of 1975 by judgment dated February 23, 1978: (reported in AIR 1978 Karnataka 136), the division bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(2.) The facts not in dispute are that the appellant's father and the respondents are brothers. His suit is based on his tenancy rights for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the alleged possession of the lands bearing R.S. Nos. 134 and 135 situated in Kittur Village and R.S. No. 109 situated in Mardur Village in Haven Taluk of Sharwar District in State of Karnataka. The division bench held thus (AIR 1978 Kant 136 at p. 140):
(3.) Other sub-ss. are not relevant. Hence omitted.