GANGAPPA BALAPPA Vs. BABURAYA SOMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as they involve substantially the same question of law.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff's suit O.S. 118/1964 was for declaration that he was entitled to half share in the suit schedule property and therefore his right to that half share should be declared and the suit properties partitioned. The appel. lants-defendants resisted the suit on the ground that they were tenants of the lands cultivating the suit schedule properties even from a date prior to 1962-63 and having cultivated evenafter the year 1964- 65, the alienation made by the landlord in favour of the respondent-plaintiff wat contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (later governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act). In that circumstance, the appellants defendants took the stand that they had acquired a right to be registered as occupants and. the question of partition therefore would not arise.

(3.) The trial Court, among other issues, framed two issues before trial : (1) Whether the defendants were tenants ? and (2) Whether the alienation made by their landlord in favour of the plaintiff was contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in as such as the vendee of the landlord was not an agriculturist ? These two preliminary issues were tried by the Munsiff as a Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and it was held that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and that the appellants-defendants were not the tenants of the suit schedule properties. In the result the suit was decreed by him in part. The defendants, thereupon, preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Bijapur who reversed the findings of the Mnnsiff-Tri- bunal. Thereafter, the matter was brought to this Court and this Court held in CRP. 1350 of .1971 that the District Judge was not the Competent Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and therefore, set aside the findings of the learned District Judge and remitted the matter to the Court of the Civil Judge as the appropriate appellate authority to hear the appeal in regard to those issues. However, in the meanwhile, the view taken by the learned single Judge of the High Court in CRP. 1350 of 1971 come to be negatived by a Division Bench in the case of Therasa Gracy D'Souza v. Thomas D'Sauza(1). The Division Bench took the view that the District Judge alone had the jurisdiction to decide in appeal the findings on preliminary issues framed by the Munsiff-Tribunal on the relevant date. In that position, the learned Civil Judge rejected the appeal of the defendants -appellants in regard to the preliminary issues referred to above. This alone is questioned in this second appeal.