M. P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-8-1988 passed in o. S. No. 146 of 1977 on the file of the Civil judge at Gokak in Belgaum District. ( 2 ) IN the course of this judgment, we refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court. The appellant is the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff presented the suit by his next friend his mother Savithramma inter alia seeking a declaration that the suit land measuring 7 acres 07 guntas situated in Block no. 712 and assessed to land revenue at Rs. 33-73 within the limits of Akkathangerhal village in Gokak Taluk and all proceedings thereto or taken in relation thereto are not binding on him and that his interest in the said land subsists as he is the co-owner of the property along with the first defendant - his father. He also asserted that the said property is the joint family property in which he has an undivided interest. ( 4 ) SOME of the facts are not in dispute. The suit land was the subject matter of proceedings under Section 48-A of the karnataka Land Reforms Act initiated by the second defendant, who claimed and established that he was a tenant of that land. A writ petition filed by the first defendant in this Court came to be dismissed confirming the order of the Land Tribunal. In the result, the second defendant has been registered as an occupant under the provisions of the karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is thereafter the present suit has been filed. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the jurisdiction of the civil and criminal Courts is barred under Sections 132 and 133 of the land Reforms Act, the Court has taken the view that the declaration prayed for cannot be granted by that Court and has therefore, rejected the suit as not maintainable. It is in that circumstance, the present appeal is preferred in this Court. ( 6 ) SRI O. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, strenuously contended that the Court below mis-read the prayer. The prayer in reality and the sum and substance of the pleadings were such that the Court should have treated the plaint as suit for partition between the plaintiff and the first defendant. ( 6 ) SRI O. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, strenuously contended that the Court below mis-read the prayer. The prayer in reality and the sum and substance of the pleadings were such that the Court should have treated the plaint as suit for partition between the plaintiff and the first defendant. ( 7 ) APPARENTLY there is some misunderstanding in the family, because it is difficult for us to understand as to how the mother can be the next friend and guardian when father is still alive. Therefore, on account of some family dispute, the litigation has been started. ( 8 ) CERTIFIED copy of the plaint produced shows, the cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff came to know of defendant no. 2's name appearing in the record of rights register in the month of October, 1987. Similarly, Court fee has been paid under Section 24 (a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and suits Valuation Act and not under Section 35 of the said Act. Therefore, to contend now that it must be treated as a partition suit, it is difficult for us to accede to having regard to the substance of the pleadings and the prayer. ( 9 ) IN terms of Section 44 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act as on 1-3-1974, all tenanted lands vested in the government free of encumbrance, extinguishing the rights of the owners of the land. There afterwards, the only right that remained with former owners of the tenanted lands was the right to receive compensation under the provisions of the Act. The authority to determine the manner in which determination should take place in regard to quantum of compensation to be paid and to whom the compensation to be paid under sections 48-B, 49, 50 and 51 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, is the Tahsildar concerned. Therefore, Section 132 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act clearly forbids any other authority to determine the compensation that is apportionable between the father and the son, assuming that the son had a claim on such compensation. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial court correctly came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable in the civil court. ( 10 ) THE appeal is misconceived. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .