Skip to content


Doddaramaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 8196 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1980Kant5
ActsKarnataka Land Reforms Act, 1962 - Sections 45 and 48-C
AppellantDoddaramaiah
RespondentState of Karnataka and ors.
Appellant AdvocateT.R. Subbanna, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateL. Subramanya, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....area. therefore, the court has to necessarily take into consideration not only what has not been said but also what has been said in the statute. if that aspect is borne in mind, the legislature never meant to prescribe the carpet area for deciding the exclusion of the non-residential premises used for commercial purpose from the application of the karnataka rent act, 1999. it is not open to the court to substitute the word carpet area in place of plinth area used by the parliament in interpreting the aforesaid statutory provisions. if such a thing is permitted, it would amount to court re-writing the section and the reading carpet area in place of plinth area which is not permissible in law. .....a registered sale deed dated 10-5-1969 to the third respondent. in his statement made before the land tribunal the petitioner has stated that he has sold the land to the third respondent and inspired of the sale he continued to be in possession and has been paying the crop rent to the third respondent and the sale deed executed by him was a nominal one.4. the third respondent has produced a copy of the decree passed in 0. s. 274 of 1975 by the munsiff court, madhugiri. the said suit was filed by the third respondent for a permanent injunction against the petitioner. the said suit came to be decreed by compromise. the terms of the compromise are as follows:(this matter being in kannada, we regret that we have to omit it as we have no facilities for printing kannada-ed) the tribunal,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This Writ Petition filed under Article 226(1), (b) and (c) is directed against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koratagere Taluk, in No. LRF. CR. 466/75-76 dated 15-5-1976 rejecting the application made by the petitioner for being registered as an occupant of the land S. No. 11/5 of Huluyanagala Village.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that on 15-5-1976 the case was posted for enquiry into the application made by the petitioner for an interim order pending his application filed in Form 7 and that while hearing the application for temporary injunction, the Tribunal has disposed of the main matter itself. Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had no opportunity to prove his case.

3. The facts necessary to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the petitioner are that the land in question originally belonged to the petitioner and he sold it under a registered sale deed dated 10-5-1969 to the third respondent. In his statement made before the Land Tribunal the petitioner has stated that he has sold the land to the third respondent and inspired of the sale he continued to be in possession and has been paying the crop rent to the third respondent and the sale deed executed by him was a nominal one.

4. The third respondent has produced a copy of the decree passed in 0. S. 274 of 1975 by the Munsiff Court, Madhugiri. The said suit was filed by the third respondent for a permanent injunction against the petitioner. The said suit came to be decreed by compromise. The terms of the compromise are as follows:

(This matter being in Kannada, we regret that we have to omit it as we have no facilities for printing Kannada-Ed)

The Tribunal, relying upon the contents of the decree rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not the tenant of the land in question. The contention of the petitioner is that the decree passed by the Munsiff could not have been relied upon by the Tribunal in as much as it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to decide the claim made by the petitioner that was the tenant of the land in question.

5. Though the case was posted on 15-5-1976 for hearing on interlocutory application, the Tribunal when it recorded the statement of the petitioner and also the third respondent, who produced the copy of the compromise decree, took the view that no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the, third respondent existed; therefore, it disposed of the main matter itself. By disposing of the main application while considering the interlocutory Application, the Tribunal did not commit any illegality inasmuch as in view of the documentary evidence, no other conclusion was possible. The Tribunal has considered the statement made by the petitioner and has not accepted the same in view of the unimpeachable documentary evidence. In view of the recitals contained in the compromise decree and also in view of the sale deed dated 10-5-1969 executed by the petitioner and further, as it is not the case of the petitioner that after the sale the tenancy was created in his favour by the third respondent, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal cannot be said to be either perverse or unreasonable or capricious and it, cannot also be said to be without any evidence. The only case of the petitioner is that even after the sale he continued to be in possession of the land in question which is opposed to the recitals contained in the compromise decree. In view of the admission made before the Civil Court in the aforesaid suit that he was not in possession of the land at any time as a tenant, the Tribunal was justified in relying upon the contents of the decree passed between the parties by the competent Civil Court as there was no legal bar to rely upon the said decree and further the Tribunal was also justified in holding that the petitioner was not a tenant of the land in question.

6. In view of the uncontroversial evidence placed before the Tribunal there was nothing more for the Tribunal to enquire into the matter. Therefore, even though the matter was posted for consideration of the interlocutary application the Tribunal was justified, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in disposing of the main matter itself.

7. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

8. Petition dismissed.


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