Skip to content


J.V. Jahagirdar Vs. S.L. Bijali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1643 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1972Kant221; AIR1972Mys221; (1972)1MysLJ207
ActsMysore Land Reforms Act, 1962 - Sections 14 and 14(1); Mysore Land Reforms Rules, 1965 - Rule 7; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 34
AppellantJ.V. Jahagirdar
RespondentS.L. Bijali
Appellant AdvocateS.D. Chhatre, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK.A. Swami, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....underwent a hindu marriage ceremony at a later point of time, would not have the effect of the parties becoming subject to the provisions of the hindu marriage act. the hindu marriage act not having been extended to the state of goa as on the date of their marriage i.e., 26.12.2002 the said act and the provisions thereunder would not apply. further, a suit for divorce by parties governed by the portuguese family law within the state of goa, can file the same in the court of domicile within goa or in the court having jurisdiction over the place where the plaintiff resides (also within the state of goa). it cannot be construed that a plaintiff who is residing outside the state of goa could also file a suit or petition for divorce outside the state of goa, as in the present case, in a..........consent of all the parties concerned, namely, all the co-sharers and the tenant till then, a co-sharer landlord is not ordinarily entitled to sue for his own share of the rent, the principle being it is a co-ordinate interest. if that be the position, the other co-sharers of the land sought to be resumed are necessary parties to the proceedings, as their interests are likely to be affected by the resumption to be allowed in favour of the petitioner.6. the above view of mine is supported by the decision in rama mothibhai v. dalvadi tupoo rama : air1956bom264 . that was a case arising out of an application filed by one of the co-sharers under section 34 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, (act 67 of 1948) to recover possession from a tenant for bona fide personal.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of an order made in the proceedings for resumption of land under Section 14 (1) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act (shortly called the Act).

2. The petitioner is a co-sharer having two annas share in the land R. S. No. 234 which is in the possession of the respondent-tenant. He filed a statement under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of his share in the land. The Land Tribunal held that the petitioner without impleading the other co-sharers could not resume his share and it further held that if the resumption was permitted it would leave a fragment. The appeal preferred against this order was dismissed by the District Judge for the reason that the other co-sharers are necessary parties to the proceedings.

3. The sole question for consideration is whether one of the co-sharers can file a statement for resumption of his share without impleading the other co-sharers as parties to the proceedings.

4. Section 14 (1) provides that when a statement is filed, the court shall, as soon as may be after giving an opportunity to be heard to the landlord and such of his tenants and other persons as may be affected and after making such enquiries as it deems necessary determine the land or lands which the landlord is entitled to resume. Rule 7 of the Mysore Land Reforms Rules 1965 provides that the statement for resumption of land under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall be in form No. 1 and all persons who have an interest in the land to be resumed, shall be made parties to it.

5. In the instant case, it is admitted that the petitioner is having only two annas share and his other brothers are the owners of fourteen annas share. Whether the shares are known or indeterminate and whether the shares are equal or unequal, every co-owner has a right of enjoyment and possession equal to that of the other co-owners. Each in theory is interested in every infinitesimal portion of the subject-matter and each has the right, irrespective of the quantity of his interest, to be in possession jointly with others. A tenant holding land under several landlords at a lump rent and under one engagement is entitled to hold the same as one unit, until it is broken up and the rents are apportioned with the consent of all the parties concerned, namely, all the co-sharers and the tenant Till then, a co-sharer landlord is not ordinarily entitled to sue for his own share of the rent, the principle being it is a co-ordinate interest. If that be the position, the other co-sharers of the land sought to be resumed are necessary parties to the proceedings, as their interests are likely to be affected by the resumption to be allowed in favour of the petitioner.

6. The above view of mine is supported by the decision in Rama Mothibhai v. Dalvadi Tupoo Rama : AIR1956Bom264 . That was a case arising out of an application filed by one of the co-sharers under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (Act 67 of 1948) to recover possession from a tenant for bona fide personal cultivation. While rejecting the application. Vyas. J., observed that where a landlord and certain other persons are co-sharers, then, the landlord alone is not entitled to file the application under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. As against a trespasser one co-owner on behalf of all the co-owners can maintain an action. But, if an action is to be filed against a tenant, then, all the co-owners must be joined in the proceedings.

7. The view taken by the learned District Judge is correct on the materials before him and it does not call for interference in this revision petition.

8. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //