PARAYYA IRAYYA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL MUDHOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order made by Bhimiah, J., allowing Writ Petition No. 9347 of 1976 filed by respondent No. 3 against the, order dated 6-9-1976 of the land Tribunal, Mudhol(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Case No. KLR. 734. The appellant herein was respondent No. 2 therein.

(2.) Among others, the appellant is the owner of agricultural lands bearing S. Nos. 115/11 and 115/15 measuring 4 acres and 18 guntas and I acre and 27 guntas respectively of Kulali village Mudhol Taluk. Admittedly under an agreement dated 16-11-1967 entered into between the appellant and respondent No,. 3, the latter has been cultivating the said lands from that date. Under S. 48A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') respondt No.3 filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Tribunal for conferment of occupancy rights to the said lands, alleging that he was in possession of those lands as a tenant of the appellant. Before the Tribunal, the appellant opposed the application of respondent No. 3 on the ground that he (respondent No. 3) was in possession of the lands under the agreement dated 16-11-1967, a self-redeeming 'mortgage, and he was not in possession of them as his tenant and therefore the Act had no application. On a consideration of the agreement dated 16-11-1967 and the evidence placed by the parties, the Tribunal by its order dated, 6-9-1976, accepted the case of the appellant and rejected the application of respondent No. 3 which was challenged, by him before this Court in Writ Petition No. 9347 of 1976. On 5-10-1977, Bhimiah, J. has allowed the said writ petition of respondent No. 3 and, the application made by him for conferment of occupancy rights and has directed, the Tribunal to register him as an occupant of the lands,

(3.) Shri G. B. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge was in error in holding that the, agreement dated 16-11-1967 was a deed of lease and was not a deed of mortgage and respondent No. 3 was therefore entitled for conferment of occupancy rights. In support of his contention, Shri Shastri relied on the ruling of Venkataramiah, J. in Veerappa Rudrappa Alagawadi v. Land Tribunal (1976) 1 Kar.L.J. 98. Shri A. V. Albal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, sought to support the order of the; learned Single Judge on the reasoning and conclusion drawn by him. Shri Albal maintained that the question is concluded by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Fuzhakkal Kuttappu v. C. Bhargavi AIR 1977 SC. 105