HANUMANTHARAYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent herein filed form 7 before the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 1-08 acres of the land in Sy. No. 276/1 out of 3 acre 23 guntas of Shetti hally village in Tumkur Taluk. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 10. 4. 1987 rejected the application holding that since the 2nd respondent executed sale deed in favour of one Smt. Hiriyamma, the mother of the first petitioner, the application is untenable. The 2nd respondent challenged the said order in appeal before the Land reforms Appellate Authority. Before the appellate Authority the parties adduced evidence and produced documents. Upon appreciation of the same, the appellate Authority by its order dated 10. 4. 1989 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the a Land tribunal and allowed the application of the tenant. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner?s have filed this revision petition.

(2.) I have perused the orders of the Land Tribunal and the appellate Authority. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was the owner of 1 acre 8 guntas out of total extent of 3-23 acres of land. He first mortgaged his land on 27. 1. 1967 and later sold the same on *l. R. R. P. No. 4085/89 dated 6th March 2003 17. 11. 1970 in favour of the mother of first petitioner. She was put in possession of the land on the date of mortgage. Since the 2nd respondent sold his ownership right in the land and put the purchaser in possession when it was mortgaged, the tenancy claim put-forth by him was wholly untenable. Rightly the Land Tribunal rejected the application. But the Appellate Authority disbelieved the sale of the land. It has concluded that the mortgage and sale were nominal. The recitals of the sale deed also states that in view of the mortgage, possession of the land was with the purchaser. Despite all these, the Appellate Authority held that the 2nd respondent was the tenant of the land. The findings and conclusion of the Appellate Authority are contrary to the registered deeds and the recitals therein.

(3.) ANOTHER important aspect of the case lost sight by the appellate Authority is, in the application the 2nd respondent claimed that he was the tenant of the land of the past 20 years. This is not correct. He being the owner of the land, mortgaged the same in 1967 and then sold in 1970. Such being the case, he cannot be the tenant of the land since 20 years. The statement in Form 7 that he is tenant since 20 years itself belis his claim. This important aspect is overlooked by the Appellate Authority.