M. KEMPAIAH AND ORS. Vs. MUDDAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the legal representatives of Respondent No. 1.

(2.) The facts as narrated by the petitioner are, that the petitioner had purchased agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 92 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas of Dasarahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk from one Lakkamma and others under a sale deed dated 22.06.1958. The khatha of the land was also made in the name of the petitioner and the Index of the land and the RTC depicted the same. The petitioner contends that Respondent No. 1 who claimed as a tenant of the land, filed Form No. 7 under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LR Act' for brevity), with the Land Reforms Act having come into force. The Tribunal had adjudicated the same and had initially rejected the claim of Respondent No. 1, against which Respondent No. 1 had filed a writ petition and this court had allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in W.P.2933/1996 by an order dated 13.10.2000. On such remand, the legal representatives of Respondent No. 1 who was dead by then and one Kempe Gowda, had examined themselves as witnesses. The petitioner had examined himself. Though the petitioner wanted to examine two other witnesses of adjoining land owners, the Chairman of the Tribunal had, by a strange order, held that no more witnesses were required to be examined and passed an order holding that occupancy rights had been granted in favour of the legal representatives of the first respondent.

(3.) It is also contended that the claim of the first respondent as a deemed tenant would also not be relevant, as it is necessary for a tenant to be inducted lawfully. Though it may be the claim of Respondent No. 1 that she was lawfully inducted by Pilladevappa as a tenant, there are no pleadings or there is no evidence as to the manner in which Respondent No. 1 was inducted as a tenant and to claim as a deemed tenant, it was necessary for Respondent No. 1 to accept the petitioner as the landlord and when she has specifically denounced that the petitioner was the owner of the land, there cannot be any deemed tenancy under the petitioner and in the absence of the Respondent No. 1 naming the true owner or the actual owner according to her under whom she was claiming such tenancy, it is not open for Respondent No. 1 to contend that the petitioner had admitted her tenancy and therefore was precluded from denying the tenancy.