DIBBADEERAPPA Vs. HONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant 3 made an application to amend his written statement. He wanted to raise a plea of tenancy in respect of the agricultural land which is the subject matter of the suit. The suit was for a declaratibn of right and permanent injunction. In the original written statement, defendant 3 has not raised any plea of tenancy. The proposed amendment has been allowed by the Court. The plaintiff is aggrieved by that. Hence, he has preferred the revision petition.

(2.) In my opinion, the Court which has no jurisdiction to determine a question, should not ordinarily allow that question. The proposed amendment relates to the tenancy claimed by defendant 3. If that amendment is allowed then the issue relating to the tenancy cannot be determined by the Civil Court, and ought to be referred to the Tribunal as required under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. I cannot understand why such charity should be extended to defendant 3. It is not as if he has no remedy to establish his right. Under Sec. 48A of the Land Reforms Act, he could approach the Land Tribunal for occupancy right claiming that he is a tenant of that land. That, is a statutory right conferred upon him. He could have taken recourse to that remedy. I am told that he has already approached the Tribunal and got an order adverse to him.

(3.) In the result, I allow the revision petition and Set aside the impugned order. No costs.