REVANAPPA Vs. MUNIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein instituted o. s. No. 50 of 1960 on the file of the munsiff, badami for declaration of title to the land measuring 5 acres and 28 guntas and in survey No. 102/2 of nandikeshwara village, badami taluk against one, kallappa, alleging that said kallappa was a tresspasser and that he had no right to remain in possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit but the civil judge, bagalkot, by his judgment and decree, in ra No. 56 of 1986, dated 8th august, 1974 allowed the appeal and granted a decree for possession of 5 acres of land in the eastern portion of the said survey number. Meanwhile, the petitioner herein filed form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights to the land in question on the ground that he has been in lawful possession of the land from 1964-65 having been let into possession by balappa badiger, the defendant in the suit.

(2.) THE land tribunal recorded evidence, and conferred occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner herein holding on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of the land as a tenant of said kallappa. The respondent herein challenged the grant in favour of the petitioner before this court and ultimately, the land reforms appellate authority which heard the claim, recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner that he was lawfully cultivating the land as a tenant of the property was unsustainable and rejected the claim of the petitioner for occupancy rights.

(3.) IN this revision, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was admittedly inducted into the possession of the property by the defendant in the suit. The petitioner has been in possession of the land for over 30 years and therefore he must be assumed to be a tenant entitled to conferment of occupancy rights. The claim of the petitioner that he has been in possession of the land since over 30 years is untenable having regard to form No. 7 which shows that during the year 1964-65, he claims to have been put into possession of the property in question by the legal representatives of the defendant in o. s. 50 of 1960. So, it is clear that the petitioner claims to have come into possession of the property by virtue of the defendant placing him in possession of the same during the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent against kallappa.