AVVAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that Malakappa had two sons by name Gurulingappa and Bhimshya. Gurulingappa had three sons one of whom was Adiveppa and his wife Kamalavva Bhimshya had three sons viz., Malekappa, Mahadevappa and Basavanthappa. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Bhimshya and sister of Basavanthappa. The petition averments disclose that in a partition between Gurulingappa and Bhimshya, the land measuring 10 acres 38 guntas being a portion of Sy.No.198A/4 of Sirakanahalli Village, Indi taluk, fell to the share of Gurulingappa and the remaining portion in favour of Bhimshya. After the death of Gurulingappa, his son Adiveppa exercised rights over the said immovable property, and on his death, his widow Kamalavva, the 7th respondent, is said to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased.

(2.) It is the assertion of the petitioner that by the wardi (report) during the year 1991, the revenue authorities entered the name of Adiveppa s widow, 7th respondent as the owner of the property in question having succeeded to the same, evident from the mutation entry bearing ME No.2055 dated 23/12/1991 Annexure A. Thereafter, the 7th respondent is said to have given up her right over the said property in favour of Basavanthappa s/o Bhimshya, as recorded in ME No.2056 mentioned in column 9 of the RTC pahani, dated 26.1.1995 Annexure B. Basavanthappa in turn is said to have given up his right over the said immovable property in favour of the petitioner herein, as recorded by the revenue authorities in ME 2225 dated 25.2.1995 Annexure C. Thus, the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the immovable property in question.

(3.) Respondents 3 to 6 filed a declaration dated 1.6.1987 in form No.1 under The Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, for short Act , for being registered as occupants of the lands in question. The Land Tribunal, in the first instance, rejected the declaration which when questioned in a writ proceeding was quashed and the proceeding remitted for fresh consideration. On remand, the 7th respondent appeared before the Land Tribunal and gave her statement that one Nagappa the father of respondents 3 to 6 was the cultivator of the land in question prior to and on the appointed date and that she had no objection for grant of occupancy rights in their favour. The Tribunal on the basis of the said statement of the 7th respondent passed the order Annexure F dated 22.2.2002 granting occupancy rights over the land in question in favour of respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this petition.