K RAVINDRANATHA SHETTY Vs. MAIRE HENGASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP No. 3852 of 2000 filed by the owner of the land in question is directed against the order dated 24-7-2000 passed on I. A. XI on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, in O. S. No. 441 of 1993, whereas CRP No. 3877 of 2000 preferred by the tenant of the land in question is directed against the order of the same Court dated 20-9-2000 on I. A. XII in the same suit. O. S. No. 441 of 1993 instituted by the owner of the land in question for bare permanent injunction against the tenant. In the said suit, I. A. XI was filed by the tenant requesting the Court below to frame an issue relating to tenancy. The Court below, by its order dated 24-7-2000 has framed an issue relating to tenancy. Being aggrieved by the said order, the owner has preferred CRP No. 3852 of 2000. I. A. XII was filed by the tenant requesting the Court below to refer the tenancy issue to the Land tribunal under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, "klr Act") and that application was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, the tenant has filed CRP No. 3877 of 2000.

(2.) WHEN the above two revision petitions came up before a learned single Judge of this Court for hearing, the learned Single Judge having noticed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mallayya murigayya v Puttappa Shivappa and also the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of B. V. Subbachari v B. K. Joyappa, and disagreeing with the opinion of the Division Bench and agreeing with the opinion of the learned Single Judge, and having opined that the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in mallayya Murigayya's case, requires reconsideration, referred these crps to the Division Bench. As directed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, these CRPs are placed before us for hearing and disposal.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the reference order of the learned Single Judge. With utmost respect, if we may say so, the reference order itself is not in order and misconceived. Reference order discloses that the learned Single Judge was appraised of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in mallayya Murigayya's case. That judgment is an authority to state that in a suit, if an issue of tenancy is raised by the defendant, such issue should necessarily be referred to the Land Tribunal as required under section 133 of the KLR Act. Having noticed the judgment of the Division bench, but placing reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of B. V. Subbachari, which judgment is ex facie contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench, the learned Judge ought not to have referred these CRPs to the Division Bench. Propriety requires that a learned Single Judge of this Court cannot question or differ with an opinion of a Division Bench or a Larger Bench of this Court unless he is of the opinion that such opinion is contrary to the law declared by the supreme Court.