RAMAIAH K Vs. K C BASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Bench of this Court has referred the" following questions for opinion of a Full Bench :

(2.) The facts are fully set out in the order of reference, and for the purpose of our decision, we may recapitulate only those which are relevant. The petitioners are legal representatives of the plaintiff in OS No. 2 of j 967. The suit was for recovery of possession of certain agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 48/2 of Kadirenahalli in Govribidanur Taluk. It was instituted its the Court of Civil Judge, Kolar and is still penaing there. The case of the plaintiff was that in 1958 59, there was an agreement between him and the defendant to exchange their lands and in pursuance of which, he took possession of the land of the defendant, while putting the latter in possession of the suit land. The defendant, however, committed breach of the contract and disposed of his land to a third person who in turn dispossessed the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly filed for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The defendant, inter alia, contended that there was no agreement as stated by the plaintiff and that he was a tenant or deemed to be a tenant of the land, On these rival contentions, one of the issues settled related to the question of tenancy pleaded by the defendant, viz,, whether the defendant was a tenant or deemed to be a tenant of the land. That issue was referred to the Munsiff, Chikkaballapur for a finding according to the then existing provisions of the Kar. Land Reforms Act (called shortly as 'the Act').

(3.) It is not in dispute that the Munsiff was competent and was the only then authority to decide the said question of tenancy. On 20th Nov. 1970, the Munsiff determined that issue holding the same against the defendant. The said finding was taken in appeal before the Dist. Judge, Kolar, in MA No. 3/71. On 16th Aug., 1973, the appeal was finally deposed of affirming the finding of the Munsiff. It appears that the descendant filed a revision petition challenging the said finding in this Court, but did not pursue the matter and the question was thus concluded before 1st March, 1974.