Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1973 DIGILAW 150 (KAR)

SITARAMA UDUPA v. GURURAJA UDUPA

1973-07-18

GOVINDA BHAT, K.J.SHETTY

body1973
( 1 ) THIS matter has been referred to a Division Bench by Venkataramiah j. by his order dated 19-2-1973. ( 2 ) SITRARAMA Udupa the petitioner and Gururaja Udupa the respondent are brothers governed by Hindu Law. Sitarama Udupa instituted O. C. 25/1971 against Gururaja Udupa for a declaration that he is exclusively entitled to the suit lands held on lease-hold rights and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Gururaja Udupa, from interfering with his possession. The respondent contested the suit. He contended, inter alia, that the suit lands belong to the Uttaradi Mutt and that in the year 1937 the Mutt granted the lands on lease to the defendant and his father, that after the said grant the defendant and his father have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands as co-owners and that of 3-10-1949, the defendant and his father had executed a chalgeni deed in favour of the Mutt in respect of the same. His further contention was that he is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit lands along with the plaintiff and consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. ( 3 ) ON the pleadings, seventeen issues were settled by the learned trial judge. Issue No. 1 was whether the plaintiff is the exclusive chalgeni tenant in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. Issue No. 16 related to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide Issue No. 1 and it reads:" Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of the exclusive chalgeni right of the plaintiff? " ( 4 ) THE jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the issue was raised by the defendant. His contention was that the said issue is one that is required to be decided by the 'court' as defined under the Mysore Land Reforms act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and that S. 132 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide or try any question which under the Act is required to be decided by the 'court'. The learned trial Judge, accepting the contention of the defendant held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 6 and directed that the said issues be referred to the Munsiff, Udipi, for decision under S. 133 (2) of the Act. The learned trial Judge, accepting the contention of the defendant held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 6 and directed that the said issues be referred to the Munsiff, Udipi, for decision under S. 133 (2) of the Act. The further proceedings in the suit were stayed. Aggrieved by the said order of the Court of the Civil Judge, udipi, the plaintiff has preferred the above revision petition. The question for decision is whether Issue No. 1 is a matter required to be decided by the 'court' under the Act. It is relevant to state that issue Nos. 2 and 6 are not independent issues but are incidential to Issue no. 1. S. 132 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide or deal with any question which is under the Act required to be decided or dealt with by the Court, Deputy Commissioner and other authorities constituted under the Act. The matters that are required to be decided or dealt with by the Court have" been enumerated in S. 112 of the Act. The contention of the respondent before the Court below and in this Court was that the question is one that falls under clause (b) of S. 112 which reads thus :" 112. Duties of Tribunal. For the purposes of this Act, the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the tribunal, namely : (b) to decide whether a person is a tenant or not under S. 4 and make declaration accordingly. " ( 5 ) THAT the suit lands are agricultural lands and are held on lease from uttaradi Mutt is not in controversy. The landlord, Uttaradi Mutt is not a party to these proceedings. There is no dispute between the landlord and the tenant. The real controversy between the parties is whether the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to the tenancy right or that it is of the joint right of the plaintiff and the defendant. The landlord, Uttaradi Mutt is not a party to these proceedings. There is no dispute between the landlord and the tenant. The real controversy between the parties is whether the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to the tenancy right or that it is of the joint right of the plaintiff and the defendant. Let us suppose that the defendant Gururaja Udupa had filed a suit for partition of joint family properties impleading Sitarama Udupa as defendant and that in the said suit he had included the suit lands and claimed partition of the same alleging that they are joint family properties liable to partition and further that Sitarama Udupa had contested the suit claiming that the suit lands are his individual or separate properties which are not liable to partition. The issue in such a suit would be, ' whether the disputed item of property is the joint family property of the parties or the individual property of Sitarama Udupa'. It was rightly not contended by Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent that such an. issue is one which is required to be decided by the 'court' under the Act and that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to decide the same is barred. The fact that Sitarama Udupa has filed the suit in the instant case and his brother is contesting the same, contending that it is the joint property does not make the position different. The real issue in both the cases is substantially the same. ( 6 ) AS the preamble of the Act indicates, it is intended to regulate agrarian relations, among other things. All disputes between a landlord and his tenant / tenants in respect of agricultural lands come within the scope of the Act. Where there is no dispute between the landlord and his tenant in respect of any agricultural holding and the dispute is betweeen the tenants inter se or persons making rival claims to the tenancy right, such matters do not fall within the purview of the Act and are not matters required to be decided or dealt with under the provisions of the Act. In our judgment, the Court below was clearly in error in the view it has taken that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide Issues 1, 2 and 6. In our judgment, the Court below was clearly in error in the view it has taken that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide Issues 1, 2 and 6. We therefore, allow this revision petition, reverse the finding of the court below on Issue No. 16 and further direct the Court below to proceed with the trial of the suit and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .