BETTEGOWDA Vs. K VENKATARAMANAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the first defendant is directed against the judgment and decree, dated: 16-9-1978, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in R.A. No. 132(1977, on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree, dated 27-10-1977, passed by the Additional Second Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 670 1969 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. Plaintiff institutted the, suit for redemption of mortgage created by one L. Ramachandra Rao, in respect of a land bearing S. No. 181 of Byrana 'halli village, in possession of Mudduhanumaiah. Ramachandra Rao executed a usufructuary mortgage, deed, on 23-6-1957, in favour of first defendant- Bettegowda, for a sum of Rs. 5,000 Since the entire land except the suit schedule property had been in possession of the tenants, the said Ramachandra Rao,, delivered possession of the only suit schedule property which was in his actual possession to the mortgagee. Subsequently the original owner Ramachandra Rao sold the suit schedule property by a registered sale deed dated 28-8-1969, to the present plaintiff. Subsequent to purchase, the plaintiff issued legal notice, dated 20-9-1969, calling upon the defendant to receive the mortgage amount and sought for possession of the schedule propertty. Defendant, however, raised all sorts of objections in his reply notice. Hence, plaintiff instituted the suit for redemption and possession. The first defendant - Betttegowda- filed his written statement and contest ed the suit. According to him, when Ramachandra Rao executed a usufructuary mortgage in his favour, he was already a tenant of the suit land and the mortgage was executed in favour of the tenant. Hence, he contended that on redemption the plaintiff was not entitled for actual possession as his tenancy continued even after redemption. The trial Court, rais,ed the following issues as arising from the pleadings for its consideration:

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before me that the Courts-below were not justified in holding that they had jurisdiction to decide whether the tenancy of the first defendant continued in view of the provisions of S. 26 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), even after the redemption of the mortgage. That is the only point that is urged for my consideration . As against that the learned counsel for the respondent argued stating that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the past tenancy, especially so when the mortgage deed is dated 23-6-1957 and that the question of tenancy involved was past tenancy earlier to that date.

(3.) The sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is: