PILLAANJINAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.02.1999 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk. The writ petition having been dismissed, the appellants are before this Court assailing the order of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) To understand the background in which a declaration in Form No.7, under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act was filed by Sri Pillaanjinappa (the original writ petitioner, since deceased) and the objections raised by Smt. Ramakka (original respondent No.3, since deceased), a brief facts of the case are required to be narrated.

(3.) According to the appellants, land bearing Sy.No.78/2, measuring 2 acres 37 guntas, situated at Horamavu Village, Bengaluru South Taluk belonged to one Pillappa, s/o Muniyappa. The said Pillappa, along with his wife Bayyamma mortgaged the lands in favour of Kadugondanahalli Krishnappa by executing a Mortgage Deed dated 06.12.1929. Pillappa and Bayyamma had no issues. It is the contentions of the appellant Pillaanjinappa that he was a tenant under Pillappa. Since there was interference by Smt.Ramakka and her husband, Pillaanjinappa filed a suit in O.S.No.627/1973, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the land in question. In the suit, it was contended by Smt. Ramakka that she purchased the property from Muniyappa, the grand son of Pillappa, vide registered Sale Deed dated 01.09.1970. The City Civil Court, which was ceased of the matter, framed an additional issue No.1(a) as to whether the plaintiff proves that he is a tenant of the suit land?. Having framed the additional issue, by order dated 31.08.1974, the Civil Court referred the matter to the Land Tribunal, in view of the bar under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, where a question of tenancy could only be answered by the Land Tribunal. The further proceedings in the suit were also stayed. However, by order dated 20.04.1991, the order of reference was recalled and the case was posted for evidence of plaintiff. Further, since the plaintiff did not appear, the suit was dismissed by order dated 19.06.1991.