MUDLAIAH Vs. A R NAGARAJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs revision against the Judgment of the Lower appellate court dated 4th January 1988 passed in R A.No. 115 of 1987 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Tumkur. The appellant before the lower appellate court was the defendant in O.S. No. 294 of 1988 filed in the Court of the Munsiff, Tumkur, by the plaintiff. That suit was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property (certain agricultural lands) which the plaintiff claimed to be in possession and cultivation by virtue of the tenancy created by the defendants in the year 1958 by an unregistered lease deed. He also prayed for temporary injunction which was granted by the trial Court. Attempts made by the defendants to have the temporary injunction vacated failed. Therefore the appeal.

(2.) It is clear from a reading of the judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate Court, plaintiff pleaded that he failed to make an application in Form No.7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction and he could not make the application in time as it was over by the time he came to know about it. It was in those circumstances, he moved the court for permanent injunction restraining the admitted true owners from interfering with his possession.

(3.) The trial court, essentially relying upon the panani extracts granted injunction holding that plaintiffs possession should be protected. The lower appellate court has gone into the matter a little deeper. It has pointed out that the trial Court mislead itself completely in granting temporary injunction even when its jurisdiction to entertain the suit was in doubt. That question was examined by the lower appellate court and it concluded that in view of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred to entertain the suit, inasmuch as, it should not go into the question of tenancy. It ought to be decided in terms of Section 112 read with Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act only by the concerned Land Tribunal and none else. However, Sri S. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the petitioner had not filed an application for registration of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, he was an unauthorised occupant who should be evicted only in accordance with law having regard to the provisions contained in Section 130 of the Land Reforms Act. For that purpose he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sakkarappa v State of Karnataka [I.L.R. 1985(1) Karnataka page 1833]. My attention was drawn to the observation made by the Learned Judge, found at page 1961. A careful reading of the paragraph shows that those observations came to be made in a totally different context. In analysing the scope of the Land Reforms Act, the learned Judge has pointed out the types of persons who could claim occupancy rights in accordance with the provisions made under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. While dealing with those questions; that rights of persons who failed to file necessary declaration seeking occupancy rights, it was pointed out that the lands having vested in Government by operation of law, a tenant who failed to secure occupancy rights, continued to be in possession, he was liable for eviction. That observation will not help the present plaintiff-revision petitioner, because it was not a case of his failing to get occupancy rights having made any declaration in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal concerned. It is a case of default. That is, not seeking occupancy rights though he had the right. If he could not seek occupancy, rights, by filing a suit for injunction he cannot confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to entertain the suit directly or indirectly. The Court would have had to examine the question of tenancy which is barred under Section 133 read with Section 112 of the Land Reforms Act.