GOVINDA SHETTY Vs. SHIVARAMA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for partition claiming 2 3 share in agricultural lands was filed by Respondents 1 and 2. The defendant in the suit contended that Item-1 of the suit property comprised in Survey No.73|20 has been in possession and enjoyment of one Honnayya Shetty and the remaining items of properties are in the possesson and enjoyment of Govinda Shetty as chalgeni tenant, the same having been leased out to them by Sindhu Shetty about 30 years ago. The Deft further contended that both the aforesaid persons have filed declarations for registration of occupancy rights under Section 48A Of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Land Tribunal, and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim posses' (on of any of the items of suit properties under the guise of partition suit filed by them. Govinda Shetty referred to above is none other than the husband of the defendant and Sindhu Shety referred to above is the mother of the defeindant.

(2.) The plaintiff perhaps, did not take seriously the aforesaid contentions raised by the defendant. They did not take any steps to implead the so called tenants. They, however, filed an application (LA.No.I) under Order XL, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for appointment of e, Receiver to take possession of the suit properties. Govinda Shetty at that stage filed an application IA. No. III asking the Court for an order not to disturb him from the schedule properties, which according to him were in his possession. The Trial Court, after considering both those applications, made a common order Allowing the application of the plaintiffs and appointin a Receiver, and dismissed the application filed by Govind Shetty. The order appointing the Receiver is challenged in this apperal

(3.) The question is whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver for the suit properties which are admittedly agricultural lands. The plaintiffs contended that they are not in actual possession of the lands. So was the contention of the defendant. Her further contention was that the lands are in possession of the two tenants: (1) Honnayya Shetty so far as Item-1 is concerned, and (2) Govinda Shetty as regards the rest. She further stated that the said persons have preferred applications before the Land Tribunal for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the same lands under Sec.48A of the Act.