KRISHNAJI RAMACHANDRA Vs. CANARA BANK HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is concerned with the validity of an order made- on the application under Or. 14, R.5 CPC, whereby the trial Court deleted issue No.5 in the suit for possession of certain agricultural lands,

(2.) The matter arises in this way: The plaintiff is a Banking Corporation. It purchased the suit lands in Court auction. The lands are admittedly in possession of the defendants. The plaintiff sued for possession on the allegation that the defendants are required to deliver possession. Defendant 1 is the father of defendants 2 to 4. Defendant 1 in his written statement contended that his sons, pursuant to a family partition, have been. living separately from him, and are in exclusive possession of the suit lands as tenants. He also contended that the suit for possession cannot lie against the tenants. .The said written statement was filed on 14-11-1973. On that day, Counsel for defendant 1 submitted before the Court that the remaining defendants have also adopted the written statement of defendant 1. The Court recorded that submission and adjourned the suit for framing issues. Issue No.5 was one of the issues framed without any objection from the plaintiff. The said issue reads : "Whether defendants 2 to 4 are the tenants of the suit lands ? " The plaintiff before he began his case, filed an application under Or. 14, R. 5 CPC to delete the above issue. Evidently, he realised that the said issue has to be referred to the Tribunal for decision as required under S.133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff contended in his application that that issue did not arise out of the pleadings of the parties and therefore ought not to have been framed. The trial Court acceded to that request and deleted the issue by the order which is challenged by defendante 2 to 4 in this revision petition.

(3.) The first contention urged for the petitioners was that there was no written statement from defendants 2 to 4 and the issue relating to the tenancy ought not to have been framed. The second contention urged related to the nature of the pleadings in the suit. The learned Counsel said that on the plea of tenancy, even the pleading of defendant 1 was vague and that vague plea should not form the basis of Issue No.5.