G V RUDRAPPA Vs. K S SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this revision petition have instituted OS. No.6 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Mandya claiming that they are the owners of agricultural lands bearing S. Nos.111/l, 112, 113, 114 and 123 in all measuring 7 acres 8 guntas situate at Settihalli village in Sri rangapatna Taluk. It is alleged that the defendants were their agents cultivating the lands along with others and in contravention of the terms of the agreement removed the crops grown on the suit lands. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs are in possession of the lands and so a decree for permanent injunction be granted.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that he was the tenant of the land in question and he was in possession of the land as a tenant and he was a lawful tenant and therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to get a decree for permanent injunction. On these pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed several issues and one of the issues was as to whether the defendant was a tenant in possession of the property. The learned Civil Judge by his order referred the above issue for adjudication under S.133 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, to the Land Tribunal.

(3.) After the reference was made the learned Munsiff to whom the issue was referred, recorded the evidence and ultimately found that the defendant was not a tenant of the suit lands and answered the issue accordingly, and sent the file to the Court of the Civil Judge at Mandya. This decision of the learned Munsiff was challenged before the Court of the District Judge at Mandya in MA. (LR) No. 125 of 1969. The learned District Judge by his Judgment dt.22-2-1972 set aside the judgment of the learned Munsiff and remitted the proceedings back to the learned Munsiff with a direction that he should decide as to whether the defendant is a tenant or a deemed tenant under the Mysore Land Reforms Act. The learned appellate Judge has also directed that an opportunity may be given to both sides to adduce such evidence as they deem necessary and thereafter to dispose of the case in accordance with law. It is this order of remand of the learned appellate Judge that is challenged in this revision petition.