SARASWATHI SHEDTHI Vs. APPANNA MAISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made by a learned Single Judge under the proviso to Sec.6 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961, this second appeal has come up for disposal before this Division Bench.

(2.) The appellant filed OS.223/1970, on the file of the Principal MunSiff, Udipi, for a declaration that the respondents were not in possession of the agricultural lands mentioned in plaint 'A' schedule as mulgeni, tenants and for possession of the said lands. She also prayed for a decree for mesne profits in respect of the lands in question for the period subsequent to 18-12-1969. Her case was that the suit lands originally belonged to an Aliyasanthana family of which her mother Giriamma Shedthi was a member and that at a partition which took place on 2-3-1928, they were allotted to the kavaru of Giriamma Shedthi. Thereafter, Giriamma who was the yejarnanthy of the kavaru in question gave possession of the suit lands to three persons, namely, Chennamma, Manjayya Shetty and Ramanna Shetty, for their maintenance during their life time. The last maintenance holder was Manjayya Shetty and he died on 18-12-1969. Thereafter the appellant who was then the yejamanthy of her kavaru attempted to take possession of the suit lands;. The respondents who were in possession of the siuit lands resisted the attempts of the appellant claiming that they were in possession of the suit lands as tenants for over 20 years. In the above connection, notices were also exchanged between the parties. Having failed in her attempt to get possession of the suit lands the appelllant instituted the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration that the respondents were not the tenants and for possession and other reliefs as stated above.

(3.) The defendants contended in their written statement that the appellant had no interest in the suit lands, and even if she had any, she was not entitled to dispossess them as they were in possession of the lands lawfully for a long time as tenants. They based their claim on a chalegani tenancy alleged to" have been created in their favour by Chennamma, one of the maintenance holders, a mulgeni chit dt. 16-4-1964 executed by Manjayya Shetty, another maintenance holder, in their favour and the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed several issues and amongst them, there were the following three issues :