VEERAPPA RUDRAPPA ALAGAWADI Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the order parsed by the Land Tribunal, Kalaghatgi rejecting his application to register him as the occupant of the land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 4 acres and situate at Tambur village.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he was the tenant in occupation of the said land on the relevant date. Respondent-2 who was the legal representative and daughter of Somappa Dyamanna Barigidad to whom the land belonged, contended that the petitioner was not a tenant and therefore he was not entitled to be registered as the occupant. In his statement before the Tribunal, the petitioner stated as follows: <IMG>judgement_98_kantlj1_1976_ASH5901.jpg</IMG> From the statement extracted above it is clear that the petitioner got into possession of the land in question under undu biduva karara agava lavani. It is also admitted by him that the said contract came to an end in 1969-70. It is further stated sadari jameena 69-70 kke bidabekagiddu bittilla . From the foregoing it is clear that the agreement between the owner and the petitioner did not bring about the relationship of landlord and tenant. We are familiar in this part of the country with transactions known as Illibhogya which are in the nature of mortgages. They are similar in their nature and incidents to zuripeshgi leases which are prevalent in Northern India. The transaction in question is in the nature of an 'Ilibhogya'

(3.) It is well settled that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to all types of transactions which are prevailing in India. From the preamble to the Act it is clear that it was intended to deal with only certain kinds of transfers. Transactions lika 'zuripeshgi' leases, 'ilibhogya' etc. are not expressly dealt with by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also well settled that in respect of transfers which are not governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the courts should apply the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. While rejecting the contention that zuripeshgi' lease was a lease the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed in Bengal Indico Company Ltd. v. Mohunt Roghubur Das 23 Ind App. 158 at 165. as follows: