WAMAN KALLAPPA KUTTUR Vs. GUNDU BASALINGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Belgaum, confirming an order of the Land Tribunal. Belgaum. refusing to issue a certificate to the landlord for resumption of the lands under the Mysore Land Reforms Act (shortly called the 'Act').

(2.) Among the points raised in this revision petition, the substantial question is as to the meaning and scope of Rule 7 of the Mysore Land Reforms Rules, 1965.

(3.) The petitioner is the manager of a joint family owning lands S. Nos. 111 and 104/1 of Basarikatte village. Belgaum Taluk, which are in the possession of the tenants who are respondents before me. The petitioner filed a statement under Section 14 of the Act, before the Tribunal for resumption of the said lands on the ground that he bona fide requires the same for cultivation by his family. The Tribunal after enquiry held that the petitioner does not bona fide require the lands for cultivation and the income by the cultivation of the lands sought to be resumed is not the principal source of income for the maintenance of the family. Incidentally, it also observed that the statement filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act is defective as the other members of the joint family who have admittedly some interest in the lands are not made parties to the proceedings. Consequently, it refused to issue a certificate to the petitioner. Those findings were affirmed by the District Judge on an appeal preferred by the petitioner. He further held that the petitioner though he is the manager of his joint family cannot represent the interests of the other members as under Rule 7, they are necessary parties to the application for resumption. As the other members of the family were not made par-tics to the proceedings, he held that the application for resumption was not maintainable.