NAGARAJU Vs. K RAMARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the petitioner in this revision petition and the short question that is raised is as to whether the question relating to the claim of status of the defendant as a tenant is required to be referred to the Munsiff's Court at Kolar for adjudication. Respondent No.1-the first plaintiff, tiled O.S.No.17/65 for declaration" of title and for possession in respect of the land in dispute. The contention of the first defendant was that he is cultivating the suit land as a tenant and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession of the land from the tenant. It was also contended that the first defendant is a deemed tenant.

(2.) In view of the defendant's contention, an issue was framed, viz., issue No.11, which reads as follows: "Issue No.11 : Is it true that the first defendant is a tenant or a deemed tenant of the suit land ?"

(3.) As per the order passed on 13-6-1968, this issue was sent to the Land Tribunal, Kolar, for a finding and the proceedings in the suit were stayed. The Tribunal decided the question in so far as the deemed tenancy was concerned. It declined to decide the question of tenancy. The view taken by the Land Tribunal was that having regard to the judgment of this Court in Thammayya v. Thimmaiya, (1968) 2 Mys.L.J. 207 the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioner is a tenant of any other kind. Thereafter the Mysore Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, (Act 6 of 1970) came into force and the amendment of the provisions of the Act provoked first defendant to apply to the Court, that having regard to the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act as amended by Act 6 of 1970, the Civil Judge's Court at Kolar has no jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy and so it should be referred to the Munsiff's Court at Kolar for adjudication. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 28th March 1970 held that it was not necessary to call for a finding. Even while rejecting this application, the view taken by the learned Civil Judge was that the amending Act 6 of 1970 was applicable but it was not necessary to refer the matter to the tenancy Court. The learned Judge incidentally negatived the contention of the petitioner that he was a tenant. It is this order that is challenged before this Court.