HASAM KHAN Vs. T T NANJUNDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned advocates who represent the various contesting parties as also the learned government Advocate who represents the land tribunal and the state, on merits.

(2.) THE short controversy that has been very vigorously contested in these writ petitions is with regard to the question as to whether abdul and hasam khan who claim to be sons of deceased abdul khader and ameenabi are in fact the legal heirs of abdul khader. The issue gets rather complicated because ameenabi was earlier married to one hassan miya and the contention raised before the tribunal was to the effect that her marriage was not dissolved and that consequently, her contention that she was lawfully married to abdul khader thereafter is not liable to be upheld. There are several complicated issues that arise in this case which revolve around two main questions, the first being as to whether the earlier marriage was dissolved and if so validly and if not, what is the effect thereof and secondly, as to whether the subsequent marriage that is pleaded with abdul khader had in fact taken place and if so whether it was lawful and the last question is as to whether the two persons who claim to be the sons of abdul khader are in fact the legal heirs. In sum and substance, the status of ameenabi as the wife and of the two persons who claim to be the sons of the couple will have to be determined. Since this issue was in dispute, evidence was lead before the tribunal but, the tribunal while granting the occupancy rights held that as far as ameenabi, abdul and hasim are concerned, that the real issue with regard to whether they come within the ambit of legal heirs' of abdul khader would have to be determined by a civil court. It is really this finding that has been assailed in the present writ petitions.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel who represent the contesting parties. Mr. Gunjal, learned counsel who represents ameenabi and her two sons vehemently submitted that this issue was intrinsically inter-related to the question of grant of occupancy rights and that the law is now settled that the tribunal has jurisdiction to decide all inter-related issues including questions as to whether a claimant is a legal heir or not. He has drawn my attention to various decisions wherein the courts have expressed this view as also to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the year 1994 in the case of mudakappa v rudrappa and others, wherein the Supreme Court did have occasion to observe that not only does the tribunal have jurisdiction to decide these issues but, that it is desirable that it does so.