CHELUVAIAH Vs. VENKATARAMIAH AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the owner of five and odd vritties in Jodi Hulisandur village in Turuvekere Taluk. The vritties were sold in a revenue sale for arrears of land revenue and the defendant-respondent, who was another vrittidar in the village, purchased them. The appellant filed applications before the revenue authorities but the sale was not set aside. He thereupon filed two suits. In O. S. No. 457 45-46 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore, he prayed that the revenue sale may be set aside on the ground that no land revenue was due justifying the sale and that even otherwise it was vitiated by fraud. In O. S. No. 27 of 1946-47, on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore, (originally No. 589/43-44 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Bangalore), he contended that the revenue sale, even if valid, does not affect his permanent tenancy rights. He prayed for a decree declaring that he has permanent tenancy rights in the land and granting permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of the land, The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff, has no such permanent tenancy rights & that even if he had any such rights, he has lost them as a result of the revenue sale. It was also contended that the defendant who is the purchaser in the revenue sale has been put in possession of the property by the revenue authorities and that the suit, as brought for mere declaration and injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiff-appellant failed in both the suits. He filed appeals against these decisions in this Court.

(2.) R. A. No. 157 of 46-47 was against the decision in O. S. No. 45 Of 45-46. In that case though no fraud was made out, it was contended that the revenue sale was without jurisdiction as no land revenue was due. On a remand for a finding on this point, the learned District Judge, on further enquiry found that arrears of land revenue necessitated the sale of the vrithi of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that arrears were really due, it was held in R. A. No. 157 of 46-47 that the dismissal of the suit in O. S. 45 of 45-4S was correct.

(3.) R. A. No. 25 of 47-48 is the appeal filed against the decision in O. S. No. 27 of 46-47 which, has been dismissed. This case had also been remanded for a finding as to the plaintiff having any permanent tenancy rights. The learned District. Judge has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant Had at no time permanent tenancy rights and that his five and odd vrithies in the Jodi village have been sold for arrears of land revenue. The point for consideration in this-appeal is whether any rights of plaintiff remain unaffected by the revenue sale.