LAWS(KAR)-1952-6-3

MUTHEGOWDA Vs. SHANBHOGUE NARANAPPA

Decided On June 17, 1952
MUTHEGOWDA Appellant
V/S
SHANBHOGUE NARANAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the lease-deed executed by the plaintiff's father gives the plaintiff a permanent heritable right. The two courts below have come to the conclusion that the document merely granted a permanent lease only for the life time of the lessee and did not grant any hereditary right. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against those decisions.

(2.) The plaintiff has brought the suit from which this appeal arises, for a declaration of his right to the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff's father, Dodda Muthegowda, obtained the lease of the schedule land from one Krishna Singh and executed a lease deed (Exhibit A) dated the 20th May 1915 in favour of the latter. The said lease has been referred to in Exhibit B, a will dated 30th August 1915 executed by Krishna Singh, wherein it is mentioned that the plaintiff's father should comply with the terms of the lease after Krishna Singh's death. The plaintiff's father enjoyed the property for some years and he is said to have died about 8 or 10 years ago. The successors-in-interest of the said Krishna Singh sold the property to defendant 1 for a sum of Rs. 2500/- and defendant 2 has been impleaded as a tenant in possession under defendant 1.

(3.) The crucial point upon which the decision of this appeal turns is the interpretation, of Ext. A, the lease deed executed by Dodda Muthe Gowda, a copy of which is proved in the case, the original not having been disputed. Mr. Kanakasabhapathy for the appellant contended that the tenure granted under the lease deed is not only permanent but also heritable, and that as the said right has been, confirmed in Ext. B the expression "Khayarn Gutta" used in Ext. A should be taken as meaning a permanent lease, especially as there is no indication in the document limiting its duration to the lifetime of the lessee and as no right of re-entry has been reserved. In support of his contention he relied upon a number of decisions which are not of much avail.