MANJUNATHA ADIGA Vs. KRISHNAVENIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The facts of the case are that one vyasaraya, was the brother of the plaintiff Smt. Krishnaveniamma. In o.s. No. 134/38 it was decided that the plaintiff shall be entitled to maintenance from vyasaraya. The defendant herein purchased 7 acres 67 cents of land from vyasaraya, the brother of the plaintiff. The sale deed dated 20th october, 1970, provided that the vendee namely, the defendant, shall be liable to pay 5 muras of rice each year to the plaintiff Smt. Krishnaveniamma. It appears that the aforesaid vyasaraya also executed a deed of settlement dated 20th october, 1970, which mentioned the fact that he had transferred to the plaintiff his right to recover 5 muras of rice from the vendee for the maintenance of his sister, the plaintiff. In the said deed of settlement, the right to recover 5 muras of rice was settled in favour of the plaintiff. This appears from a reading of the sale deed as also the deed of settlement. The defendant purchased from vyasaraya the land measuring 7 acres 67 cents, agreeing to pay 5 muras of rice per year, and was made personally liable for the payment which was a charge on the lands sold. Under the deed of settlement, the defendant transferred the right to collect 5 muras of rice every year to the plaintiff. It appears that there was default in payment of the annuity, in the year 1972, which resulted in filing of a suit being o.s. No. 468/1972. Later, the parties settled their disputes out of court, and therefore the suit was not proceeded with.

(2.) further, it appears that on 1st of march, 1974, some of the lands vested in the state of Karnataka under the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, with the result, that the defendant was left with only 1 acre 3 cents of land sold to him. The defendant did not give to the plaintiff 5 muras of rice, which was due on 30th march, 1976. This led to the filing of the instant suit. The courts below have decreed the suit.

(3.) the learned counsel for the appellant urged before me that the courts below have committed an error of law in decreeing the suit. Having regard to the fact that a major portion of the lands sold to the defendant have vested in the state of karnataka, under the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the only right which the plaintiff has is to make a claim under the Act, claiming the equivalent amount from out of the compensation payable under the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.