M. MALLIKARNJUNAIAH Vs. SHIVANNA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in suit for redemption of a possessory mortgage, claiming to be the tenant of the land earlier to the mortgage, challenges in this appeal the decree for khas possession made against him.

(2.) THE facts are these: - - The land S. No. 113 of Kommaghatta Village, measuring 3 acres and odd was the property of the family of one Bhadramma, Channaveeraiah, the eldest son, leased the land to the defendant on wara basis. Channaveeriah, died in the year 1948. The property thereafter was divided between the surviving brothers, and the disputed one half came to the share of Revanna. Revanna leased his share to the defendant on gutta basis for eight years. It was an unregistered lease. The annual rent reserved therein was three pallas of paddy. After the expiry of the period, the lease was renewed for a further period of ten years, but that deed was also unregistered. When the defendant was thus in possession of the land Revanna for his personal necessity mortgaged the land for Rs. 500/ - under Exhibit D -7 dated 16 -12 -1956 in favour of the defendant. He died on 11 -3 -1961. Thereafter, Siddamma the widow of Revanna offered to redeem the mortgage as seen from the notice Exhibit P -2 dated 2 -4 -1964. She also remitted the mortgage amount. The defendant contended that he has no objection for the redemption but he cannot be dispossessed from the land as he has been a tenant even from the period earlier to the mortgage. Siddamma apparently was not financially sound. She without prejudice to her dispute as to the tenancy claimed by the defendant, offered to sell the land for Rs. 7,000/ - to him as in law it was obligatory for the landlord first to offer it to his tenant. The defendant said that the price was excessive and did not purchase. Siddamma sold the same for Rupees 6,995/ - to the plaintiff who brought the suit for redemption against the defendant, also impleading Siddamma as the second defendant.

(3.) THE defendant quite naturally resisted the suit for actual delivery of possession. His main contention was that he was a tenant long prior to the mortgage in his favour and automatically the said tenancy revives after the redemption of the mortgage and as a tenant he was entitled to the protection available under the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, and now under the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act (Act No. 10 of 1962). The plaintiff pleaded in the alternative: