THIMMAIAH Vs. KHATUMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. These Writ Appeals are presented against the common order of the learned Singfe Judge in three Writ Petitions presented by the appellants dismissing the petitions in which they had challenged the legality of the order of the Land Tribunal, Remanagaram, by which their claim for occupancy rights in respect of certain items of agricultural lands were rejected.

(2.) The undisputed facts of these appeals are these : Respondent-1 was the owner of 6 acres 09 guntas of land in Sy. No. 53 of Vaderahalli of Ramanagaram Tq. Appellants 1 to 3 are sons and appellant No. 4 is the wife of Late Nanje Gowda. They made applications before the Land Tribunal, Ramanagaram, claiming occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. 4 acres out of the aforesaid land had been mortgaged in favour of Nanje Gowda by a registered mortgage deed dated 31st March, 1961 (Regn. No. 755/61-62). 2 acres 09 guntas of land was also mortgaged under a registered mortgage deed dated 22-7-1967 (Regn. No. 2451/67-68) in favour of Siddamma, wife of Bagaiah @ Kuppaiab, who was also the brother of Nanje Gowda. The appellants claimed that they were the tenants of 4 acres of land even before it was mortgaged in favour of Nanje Gowda. Similarly, their plea was that they were tenants of acres 09 guntas even before it was mortgaged in favour of Siddamma by the husband of respondent-1. It was also their further plea that the mortgagee Siddamma allowed the lease to continue. The claim of the appellants for occupancy rights was granted by the Land Tribunal and was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1977 by its order datec 18-11-1979 on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to record a finding as to whether Nanje Gowda was a tenant of the aforesaid two items of land mortgaged by the husband of respondent-1 as that would be a material fac necessary to decide whether the appellants were eligible for occupancy rights. Afier the matter was remitted the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the lease in favour of Nanje Gowda, prior to the mortgage, was not proved. As a result the applications of the appellants were rejected. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed three Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Jugde holding that the finding recorded by the Tribunal was a finding of fact and there is no ground to interfere with the same. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants have presented these appeals.

(3.) Mr. Papanna, learned Counsel for the appellants, raised the following contentions :