SANGAVVA Vs. ONKARAPPA VENKATESHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters under the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962, hereinafter called 'the Act', arise out ot wo applications filed by the common petitioner for resumption of land under S.14 of the Act. The contention of the respondents was that the lands sought to be resumed belong to the joint family which consists of two co-parceners who are the sons of the petitioner and the petitioner is not the landlord within the definition of of that word under S.2A(20) of the Act. The Land Tribunal rejected the applications on the ground that they are not maintainable as the petitioner is not the landlord. Appeals preferred to the Appellate Authority (District Judge, Bijapur) in Misc. Case Nos.32 and 33 of 1967 were unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred the above civil petition.

(2.) The Appellate Authority agreeing with the Land Tribunal has held that the applications for resumption should have been filed by the petitioner and her sons and not by the petitioner alone. The case of the petitioner was that in her family there was a partition in which the lands in question had been allotted to her share forher maintenance. It is well settled that a family partition need not be evidenced by a written partition in a Hindu undivided family. S.14 of the Act entitled a 'landlord' as defined therein to resume his land from a tenant if the conditions specified in Ss. 14 and 16 are satisfied. The jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal (now the Court) under S.14, is to determine whether or not the conditions laid down under Ss.14 and 16 are satisfied. In proceedings under S.14, if the tenant contends that the applicant is not his landlord, then the Court has to determine that question as a jurisdictional fact. The word 'landlord' has been defined in S.2A(20) to mean 'a person who has leased land to a tenant and includes a person who is entitled to receive rent from a tenant'. It is clear from the said definition that the person who has leased the land to a tenant and also a person entitled to receive rent from a tenant are entitled to seek resumption under S.14.

(3.) It is not the case of the petitioner that she has leased the lands to the Respts. Her case was that she is a person entitled to receive rent from the Respts., that she has been so receiving rent from the Respts. since 1956 and that she has also obtained decrees for recovery of rent. If the Petr. in her own right had received rent from the respondents or she proves that she has the legal right to receive rent of the lands, she satisfies the definition of the word 'landlord' under the Act. The authorities below have not approached the question in accordance with law. In our opinion, the decision of the authorities below are vitiated by a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record. We, therefore, set as do the orders of the Appellate Authority (District Judge, Bijapur) made in Misc. Case Nos.32 and 33 of 1967 and orders of the Land Tribunal, Bagalkot, made in MLR Case Nos.73 and 74 of 1966 and remit the matters to the Court of the Munsiff, Bagalkot with the direction to restore the application for resumption, to their proper file and dispose of the same in accordance with law in the light of this order. The parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence. Ordered accordingly. No costs.