RAMACHARYA NARAYANA CHARYA BURLI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Full Bench is whether the decisions of this Court in R.A. No. 34 of 1955 and R.A. No. 161 of 1955 lay down the law correctly?'

(2.) WHEN R.A. No. 22 of 1959 which involves the question as to the apportionment of compensation between the appellants representing the landlord's interest and the respondents representing tenant's interest was argued before a Division Bench, the two decisions mentioned in the question referred to the Full Bench were relied upon by Mr. V. Krishna Murthi as laying down the correct ratio of apportionment of compensation between the landlord and the tenant and prays for a decision of the appeal on that basis. But Mr. Jagirdar for the Respondents drew the attention of the Bench which heard the appeal to a decision of the Privy Council in Rakhal Chandra v. Secretary of State, AIR 1929 PC 113 and that of the Supreme Court in Vithal Yeshwant v. Shikandarkhan, : [1963]2SCR285 which do not appear to accord with the decisions of this Court. Hence the reference to a Full Bench.

(3.) IN R.A. 34 of 1955, besides the question of adequacy of compensation awarded 'spect of Survey No. 242/1 situated in Jodi Kempapura Agrahar village in Bangalore, the question of apportionment of compensation between the appellant who had acquired the rights of permanent tenancy and claimed to have also acquired the rights of Jodidars and the respondents who were the Jodidars, came up for consideration. Mir Iqbal Husain, J. who delivered the judgment, referred to the various decisions cited before the Court and came to the conclusion that there was not much uniformity in the rule to be adopted for apportionment of compensation between the Zamindar on the one hand and the occupancy tenant or the Kadim tenant on the other. The Subordinate Judge on a reference under Section 18 of the Act had awarded ten annas' share in the compensation to the Jodidar and six annas' share to the tenant. The decision of the Division Bench in R.A. No. 161 of 1995 and that of the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1929 All 525 were also cited. His Lordship came to the conclusion that the position of a tenant in Mysore was slightly better than that of his counterpart in the Allahabad case and that the ratio of fifty -fifty laid down by this Court in R.A 161 of 1955 appeared to be in consonance with law, justice and equity. While agreeing with this decision, my learned Brother Hegde, J. observed :