RAMAIAH Vs. T GUNDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of the courts below.

(2.) the appellant is the assignee ofa mortgage created by respondent-gundappa since deceased represented by his l.rs. The facts leading to this appeal may be stated and they are as follows.

(3.) gundappa mortgaged the agriculturalland comprised in two survey numbers in tumkur in favour of one lakshtninarasimhaiah at a point of time. He paid the full mortgage amount and wanted to redeem the same, the mortgagee received the mortgage consideration but refused to give back the documents with the necessary endorsements. That led gundappa to file o.s. No. 82/1959 in the court of the munsiff, tumkur. That suit cama to be decreed. An appeal filed before the civil judge, tumkur, came to be dismissed. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed in this court in rsa. No. 155/1966. That appeal confirmed the decrees drawn up by the trial court and the lower appellate court. But, nevertheless, sent back the matter for consideration in regard to the claim of tenancy put forward by the present appellant, who was the 7th defendant in the suit inter alia on the ground that he was not only an assignee of the mortgagee but also a tenant of the lands under gundappa and even after redemption he had a right to continue in possession as a tenant. At the relevant time when the regular second appeal was disposed of, the forum to decide the question of tenancy was the tribunal created under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) namely, the munsiff having jurisdiction over the area. Therefore, going only into that question the learned munsiff passed an order after recording evidence on the issue suggested by the high court as to whether the present appellant-ramaiah was a tenant of the lands in question and came to the conclusion that he was not such tenant. That judgment was delivered on 31st march, 1971. Against that, an appeal was preferred by the said ramaiah before the district judge, tumkur, in m.a. No. 68 / 1977. It appears that appeal abated in view of the changes in the act causing ouster of jurisdiction. In the result, the present appellant preferred r.a. No. 20 / 1987 in the court of the additional civil judge, tumkur. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned civil judge by his order dated 29th november, 1989. Therefore, the present appeal.