SIDDAPPA A/F KARIYAPPA PUJAR Vs. BASAVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocates appearing for the parties. Perused the order impugned in this writ petition whereunder trial court has dismissed I.A.17 filed by first defendant seeking stay of the entire suit by invoking section 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

(2.) IT is the contention of Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that Sy.No.253 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas which has been described as item No.2(b) in the plaint schedule is the self acquired property of deceased applicant Sri.Kariyappa namely adopted father of first defendant and who is also his grandfather and said Sri.Kariyappa had applied for grant of occupancy rights and same had been granted which was set aside by this court and matter has now been remanded back to the Land Tribunal for being adjudicated on merits and during the pendency of the said proceedings before the Land Tribunal Sri.Kariyappa expired and wife and daughter of Sri.Kariyappa have filed an application to come on record in those proceedings apart from first defendant himself. He would contend as to whether said land is a tenanted land or not is to be adjudicated by Land Tribunal and issue regarding tenancy cannot be gone into by a Civil Court on account of bar contained under section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Civil court should not examine any issue regarding tenancy in respect of the said land and it has to stay the suit under section 133 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He submits an application was filed for stay of proceedings before Civil Court and trial court has erroneously rejected the said application. Hence he prays for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by trial court and prays for allowing I.A.17. In support of his submission he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwaragouda and others Vs Mallikarjun Gowda and others, 2009 1 SCC 626.

(3.) PER contra Sri.Srikant T. Patil, learned counsel appearing for caveator/R -1 would support the order passed by trial court and contends that after grant of occupancy rights by tribunal it is for the Civil Court to examine as to the nature of right claimed by parties and as such Civil Court would be fully competent to adjudicate as to whether the said property in question would enure to the benefit of joint family or it belonged to deceased Sri.Kariyappa alone. Hence, he would support the order passed by trial court and in support of his submission he has relied upon the following two Judgments: