Skip to content


Dibbadeerappa Vs. Honnamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 208 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1978Kant130; ILR1978KAR1147; 1978(2)KarLJ177
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 8, Rule 9; Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Sections 133
AppellantDibbadeerappa
RespondentHonnamma and ors.
Advocates:M.V. Sheshadri, Adv.
Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. sections 386 & 378: [v. jagannathan, j] appeal against acquittal - appellate court has got power to re-appreciate and reweigh evidence and come to its own conclusion. indian evidence act,1872[c.a.no.1/1872]-- section 3: [v. jagannathan, j] appreciation of evidence - hostile witness held, his evidence cannot be ignored in totality. where the hostile witness is not supporting prosecution case in certain minor aspects which has no bearing on prosecution case, said portion of evidence can be rejected. part of evidence which supports prosecution case will have to be accepted......determined by the civil court, and ought to be referred to the tribunal as required under section 133 of the karnataka laud reforms act. i cannot understand why such charity should be extended to defendant-3. it is not as if he has no remedy to establish his right. under section 48-a of the land reforms act, he could approach the land tribunal for occupancy right claiming that he is a tenant of that land. that is a statutory right conferred upon him. he could have taken recourse to that remedy. i am told that he has already approached the tribunal and got an order adverse to him.3. in the result, i allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. no costs.4. revision allowed.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Defendant-3 made an application to amend his written statement. He wanted to raise a plea of tenancy in respect of the agricultural land which is the subject-matter of the suit. The suit was for a declaration of right and permanent injunction. In the original written statement, defendant-3 has not raised any plea of tenancy. The proposed amendment has been allowed by the Court. The plaintiff is aggrieved by that Hence, he has preferred the revision petition.

2. In my opinion, the Court which has no jurisdiction to determine a question, should not ordinarily allow that question. The proposed amendment relates to the tenancy claimed by defendant 3. If that amendment is allowed, then the issue relating to the tenancy cannot be determined by the Civil Court, and ought to be referred to the Tribunal as required under Section 133 of the Karnataka Laud Reforms Act. I cannot understand why such charity should be extended to defendant-3. It is not as if he has no remedy to establish his right. Under Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act, he could approach the Land Tribunal for occupancy right claiming that he is a tenant of that land. That is a statutory right conferred upon him. He could have taken recourse to that remedy. I am told that he has already approached the Tribunal and got an order adverse to him.

3. In the result, I allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. No costs.

4. Revision allowed.


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