SOMBAPPA RASAPPA KERUNNAVAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is by the plaintiff, who failed to obtain possession of a little over 12 acres of land in survey No. 65 of hebli village in dharwad taluk. The suit filed by him was decreed as prayed for despite resistance by the first defendant state of karnalaka as well as the second defendant saranjamdar.

(2.) plaintiffs case was, simply stated, he was a tenant of saranjamdar. Onabolition of saranjam in 1952, he paid the occupancy price to the government and entered upon possession as an occupant and therefore, his dispossession in the year 1961 was illegal and as such was entitled to restoration of possession. The first defendant state of Karnataka, in its written statement, denied the correctness of the assertions made by the plaintiff in his plaint. It set out the facts as it was aware of from the records. It pointed out that in the year 1949 itself, the saranjamdar had initiated proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 to resume the land terminating the tenancy of the plaintiff and that an order came to be passed by the tenancy court in 1951 itself directing resumption and affirming the termination of the tenancy. It was thereafter that the saranjam abolition act came to be passed. In other words, what was manifest was thai tenant was not a tenant of the saranjam land when it was abolished. In any event, the matter went up to the Bombay appellate tribunal which gave an order in favour of the second defendant who made the very same point in his written statement reiterating the facts which had already been stated by the first defendant. The second defendant's contention was that soonafter order in his favour, in the year 1954, by the Bombay appellate tribunal, he moved the revenue authorities for possession of the land and it was given to him in 1961 by the revenue authorities. Therefore, he contended, the suit was not maintainable. The trial court, however, on such pleadings, framed as many as ten issues:

(3.) considering the history of the case and the fact that the plaintiff was a party tothe proceeding under the Bombay agricultural land and tenancy act of 1947 and the order in favour of the saranjamdar by the Bombay appellate tribunal in 1954 and possession having been given by the revenue authorities in 1961, allowed the appeal placing reliance on the 1969 order of the government. He also held that under the Provisions of the saranjam rules of 1962, the suit concerning the rights of occupancy and tenancy was barred and therefore the suit was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, second defendant has preferred the appeal in this court.