KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. H PSUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. A. No. 109 and S. A. 110 of 48-49 are appeals against the Judgment and decrees of the Subordinate Judge, Hassan, in Regular Appeals Nos. 134 and 135 of 46-47, confirming those of the Munsiff, Kassan, in O. S. 549 and 543 of 45-46 respectively. Both these suits were dismissed by the learned Munsiff.

(2.) The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court filed the suits for partition and possession of the properties in dispute. They contend that they are the joint family properties of themselves, and of the first defendant, who was the Manager of their joint family. The other defendants in the two cases have only derived their title from the first defendant. The main contention of the contesting defendants is that the properties were forfeited to Government for default of payment of land revenue and as such the plaintiffs have no subsisting rights. It is unnecessary to consider other contentions of the contesting defendants, as the Courts below have upheld those contentions and dismissed the suits.

(3.) At the outset it has to be stated that the plaintiffs have not in their reply statement denied the allegations made in the written statement that the properties in dispute have been forfeited to Government on account of default of payment of land revenue. What is however contended is that under Law a mere order of forfeiture has no legal effect and that neither the first defendant nor the Plaintiffs have lost their right in the properties and it is only by a subsequent sale that these rights are affected. Section 54 of the Land Revenue Code has been relied on. It is particularly the last portion of that section that was contended by Mr. Sreenivasayya, the learned Advocate for the Appellants, to be of much help to the case of the appellants. Section 54 is as follows: