Reforms Act, 1961 have no application to the present case on hand. Admittedly, the alleged tenant is not a party to the proceedings. The plaintiff has questioned the partition deed effected between the defendants family members vide Ex.P.10. The plaintiff apprehends that based on the said partition deed, the defendants are likely to create third party rights. Therefore, if these significant details are taken into consideration, then the bar contemplated under Sections 132 and 133 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 has no application to the present set of facts. The issue of tenancy is not involved in the present case and the tenant is not before the Court. Interestingly, the defendants are disputing the tenancy of the applicant and they want to take advantage of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court and non-suit the plaintiff by invoking Sections 132 and 133 of the Land Reforms Act. The protection under Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is available to the tenant and not to the landlord. If the original defendant has sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff's father under the
