HANMAWWA Vs. VENKATESH DEVARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit lands concerned in this! second appeal were admittedly 'Devasthan Inam Lands'. They were leased to the husband of the appellant and after his death, the appellant has been continuing in possession on an annual rental of Rs.111-14P. These were the averments made by the respondent-plaintiffs in the suit for possession against the appellant- defendant .

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the defendant was a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands; Act and her'tenancy rights were not affected notwithstanding the provisions in the then existing Sec.107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. But that decree was reversed in the appeal on the ground that the suit lands fell within the scope of Sec. 107 and consequently, the defendant has ho protection from eviction

(3.) It seems to me that it is not necessary to consider the correctness of the divergent views expressed by the Courts below. Sec.107 has been Substantially amended by Karnataka Act 1 of 1974, whereby the exemption that was available to Religious & Charitable Institutions managed by or under the control of the State Govt has been altogethar taken away. The tenant of even such lands is now entitled to protection and benefits conferred by the Land Reforms Act. See Mahalingaswamigalu v. State of Karnataka ((1977) 1 KarLJ. 409.).