H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendant's second appeal from the judgment and decree dated 12th november, 1984, passed by the principal civil judge, mangalore, in regular appeal No. 58 of 1982 (Cheluvamma Poojarthi v. Birmanna Poojary) dismissing her appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15th april, 1982, passed by the principal munsiff, karkala, in o. s. No. 2 of 1976, whereby the learned munsiff decreed the plaintiffs (respondent's) suit for possession and for arrears of rent and damages. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are:the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for possession of a tiled house situate in survey No. 228/2 of miyar village, for arrears of rent from 31-1-1974 to 31-3-1975, for mesne profits from 1-4-1975 to 30-11-1975, for mesne profits during the pendency of the suit and for costs. According to the plaintiffs/respondent's case, the plaintiff/respondent purchased the land under the registered sale deed dated 27-8-1959 and after having purchased the same, his case is, he constructed a tiled house, compound wall, dug a well and planted about 35 coconut trees. According to the plaintiff he has been in possession of the house and the land ever since the purchase. He was residing in the house for sometime after its construction. Thereafter, the defendant who had no house requested him to let that out on rent to her on a monthly rent of Rs. 8/- and so it was leased out to her on the assurance that whenever he the plaintiff requires the house she would vacate the same. A rent note was executed as well. Further, according to the plaintiff, the defendant paid the rent till december, 1973 and obtained receipts from him. Thereafter, the defendant failed to pay the rents from january 1974 inspite of repeated demands. The plaintiffs case is that by the notice dated 10-3-1975 through his counsel the defendant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the premises and thus the tenancy was terminated. But, the defendant did not comply with the notice and gave a false and evasive reply. She alleged that the tenancy is chalgeni tenancy. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained tofile the suit for ejectment and recovery of the arrears to rent. But, the defendant did not comply with the notice and gave a false and evasive reply. She alleged that the tenancy is chalgeni tenancy. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained tofile the suit for ejectment and recovery of the arrears to rent. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the said notice was served on the defendant on 13-4-1973, i. e. , the date of rent. The tenancy or the building lease was terminated on with effect from 31-3-1975. The defendant contested the suit by filing her written statement. She denied to have taken the said house on rent and to have promised to vacate the same. She also denied the rent note to have been executed and the alleged that the note is frivolous and false and a concocted one. A plea was also taken by the defendant that the said notice was not legal and proper. She further took up the plea that her husband had taken the land bearing survey No. 228/2 on an annual rent of Rs. 25/- and he had also paid a sum of Rs. 200/- as advance. She has further stated that the chalgeni rent was paid till the end of 31-3-1974. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that the suit house and the land in question had vested in the state government since 1-3-1974 as survey No. 228/2 was an agricultural land and on this score she contended that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it was the land tribunal or by competent to decide the question of tenancy. She asserted that her husband anni poojary has filed an application declaration in respect of the land before the tribunal claiming occupancy rights and that it is pending. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues:"2. 1. Whether the suit rent bond is true, valid and genuine ? 2. Whether the building tenancy set up by the plaintiff is true? 3. Whether the suit building is a farm house formingpart and parcel of the chalgeni holding of the defendant ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possessionof the suit building ? 5. Whether the frame of the suit is proper ? 6. 2. Whether the building tenancy set up by the plaintiff is true? 3. Whether the suit building is a farm house formingpart and parcel of the chalgeni holding of the defendant ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possessionof the suit building ? 5. Whether the frame of the suit is proper ? 6. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try thissuit for a portion of the lease-hold property?"the trial court framed the following additional issues:"1, whether the defendant is an agricultural labourer under the provisions of the Karnataka land reforms ACT ? 2. Whether this suit is liable to be stayed under sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka land reforms ACT ? 3. Whether this court has got jurisdiction to try this suit ?"the trial court recorded its findings that the suit rent note has been proved to be valid and genuine and it has been executed by the defendant/appellant; that the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was a tenant of the house is established by the plaintiff; that the suit property is not a farm house forming part and parcel of the alleged chalgeni tenancy as alleged by the defendant, and that the trial court has jurisdiction to try the suit for possession and arrears of rent in respect of the suit property. The trial court has also recorded a finding to the effect that the defendant was not an agricultural labourer. The trial court further held that the suit was not liable to be stayed under sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka land reforms ACT and it has full jurisdiction to try the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendant filed regular appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court entertained the appeal and, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. ( 3 ) THE defendant having felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's judgment and decree has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. ( 3 ) THE defendant having felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's judgment and decree has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant placed his contentions before me challenging the judgments and decrees of the courts below that the judgments and decrees of the courts below are without jurisdiction; that, in view of the provisions of Section 38 of the Karnataka land reforms ACT and Section 132 thereof the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that in view of Section 38 of the ACT and in view of the facts of the case the defendant/appellant being an agricultural labourer is entitled to be registered as the owner of the suit property as the defendant has become the owner thereof in view of vesting the property with the state government and that the question involved in the case can only be decided by a land tribunal and not a civil court in view of Section 132 of the act. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the notice of termination of tenancy, even if the defendant has not been in possession of the house, is invalid and as it is not in accordance with law, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 6 ) THE relevant sections of the Karnataka land reforms ACT need to be quoted here. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the ACT reads as under: 38. Dwelling houses of agricultural labourers, etc. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 6 ) THE relevant sections of the Karnataka land reforms ACT need to be quoted here. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the ACT reads as under: 38. Dwelling houses of agricultural labourers, etc. " (1) (a) if, in any village, an agricultural labourer is ordinarily residing in a dwelling house on a land not belonging to him, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to sub-sections (2) and (3), such dwelling house along with the site thereof and land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for its enjoyment, shall on the date of publication of the Karnataka land reforms (amendment) Act, 1978 in the official gazette, vest absolutely in the state government, free from all encumbrances and the agricultural labourer shall be entitled to be registered as owner thereof. Explanation. Xxx xxx xxx" Section 38 (b) and (c) of the ACT reads as follows: (b) every agricultural labourer entitled to be registered as owner under clause (a) may, make an application to the tribunal in the prescribed form and manner on or before march, 1983 and the tribunal shall, after enquiry in the manner specified in or under Section 48-a, by Order, determine the person entitled to be registered as owner, the dwelling house and land in respect of which he is entitled to be so registered and such other matters as may be prescribed and forward a copy of the Order to the tahsildar. (c) the tahsildar shall, on receipt of the Order passed under clause (b), determine in the manner specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 47, the amount the landowner shall be entitled to for the extinguishment of his rights in such land. On payment of the amount so determined to the government, by the agricultural labourer, the tahsildar shall issue a certificate to such labourer specifying the extent and such other particulars as may be prescribed relating to such dwelling house and land and that he has been registered as owner thereof. A copy of the certificate shall be forwarded by the tahsildar to the sub-registrar who shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908) register the same. A copy of the certificate shall be forwarded by the tahsildar to the sub-registrar who shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908) register the same. The owner of the land shall be paid the amount paid by the agricultural labourer in case in a lumpsum". Section 38 (3) (d) of the ACT reads as follows:"where no application is made under sub-section (1), within the time allowed the right of the agricultural labourer to be registered as owner shall have no effect and the dwelling house and land shall be deemed to have not vested in the state government", Section 132 reads as under:"bar of jurisdiction. (1) no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this ACT required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the deputy commissioner, an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the assistant commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83 the tribunal, the tahsil- dar, the Karnataka appellate tribunal or the state government in exercise of their powers of control. (2) no Order of the deputy commissioner, an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 77 the assistant commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83, the tribunal, the "tahsildar, the Karnataka appellate tribunal, or the state government made under this ACT shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court". Section 133 of the ACT reads as under:"suits, proceedings, etc. , involving questions required to be decided by the tribunal. Section 133 of the ACT reads as under:"suits, proceedings, etc. , involving questions required to be decided by the tribunal. (1) notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force, (i) no civil or criminal court or officer or authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land decide the question whether such land is or not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the land said from prior to 1st march, 1974; (ii) such court or officer or authority shall stay such suit or proceedings insofar as such question is concerned and refer the same to the tribunal for decision; (iii) all interim orders issued or made by such court, officer or authority, whether in the nature of temporary injunction or appointment of a receiver or otherwise concerning the land shall stand dissolved or vacated, as the case may be; (iv) the tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under clause (1) and communicate its decision to such court, officer or authority. The decision of the tribunal shall be final. (2) nothing in sub-section (1) shall preclude the civil or criminal court or the officer or authority from proceeding with the suit, case or proceedings in respect of any matter other than that referred to in that sub-section". ( 7 ) A reading of sections 38, 132 and 133 of the ACT clearly shows that it has application if the proceedings had taken under Section 38 of the act. No doubt, ordinarily the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 132 of the ACT to decide, settle or deal with the question which by the ACT is required to be decided, settled or dealt with by the authority under the ACT and civil courts have no jurisdiction to decide the same. Reading of Section 38 of the ACT shows that a dwelling house in which an agricultural labourer ordinarily resides on a land not belonging to him on the date of publication of the Karnataka land reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978 in the official gazette, it has been provided that the dwelling house along with the site thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto shall vest in the state government free from all encumbrances and the agricultural labourer shall be entitled to be registered as owner thereof. It further provides that every agricultural labourer who is entitled to be registered as the owner shall make an application under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 38 within the prescribed time, in the prescribed form, in the prescribed manner on or before the prescribed date, i. e. , 31-3-1983. If that is done, then only, the tribunal is required to enquire into the matter and after determining the question whether the person (applicant) is entitled to be registered as owner of the dwelling house and the tahsildar implements the Order of the tribunal as provided under Section 38 (l) (c) of the act. According to clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Act, where no application is made under sub-section (1) within the time allowed the right of the agricultural labourer to be registered as owner shall have no effect and the dwelling house on the land shall not vest in the state government. As per this provision, it has been very essential for the defendant/appellant to have moved an application within time and asserted her claim. But, there is no allegation that the defendant/appellant in the present case has moved or had moved any application under Section 38 (1 kb) of the act. When the application has not been moved, clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 38 did take its effect, i. e. , right of the agricultural labourer to be registered as owner did lapse and lose its effect and further the dwelling house and land would have the effect of not vesting in the state government. That being the position in law, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff/respondent continues to be the owner of the dwelling house and the dwelling house and the land not having vested in the state government the defendant/appellant did not become its owner under Section 38 of the act. When that is so, the civil court did have jurisdiction to decide the dispute and Section 132 of the ACT is not a bar. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the civil court has no power or did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute under sections 38, 132 and 133 of the ACT is without substance. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the civil court has no power or did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute under sections 38, 132 and 133 of the ACT is without substance. ( 8 ) AS regards the second contention, both the courts below held that the notice, exhibit p-3, was valid, though p. w. . 1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that even though the defendant executed the rent bond on 13-4-1973 she was in occupation of the suit house from 1-4-1973 itself. That being the position, in the present case the requirement of Section 106 of the transfer of property ACT for 15 days' notice expiring it on 31-3-1975 is complied with. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to indicate any error of law in that finding. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no substance in the second appeal. The second appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .