A partition and separate possession suit over leasehold lands later granted via Form No.7 occupancy rights was upheld by two courts; the appellant's second appeal invoking an Apex Court tenancy-inheritance precedent failed, as the grant was made on behalf of the whole jointly cultivating family.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1196 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI N.SUKUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O. DHARNAPPA MOILY, R/AT: GANDHINAGARA, KARIMANELU VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TQ, D.K., PIN - 574214.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O. DHARNAPPA MOILY, R/AT: KODLAKE, PARENKI VILLAGE, SARLIKADU POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, PIN - 574214.
ALL ARE AT: BALTHABAILU HOUSE, KARINJA KAVALAPADOOR VILLAGE , BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DIST. - 574219.
7. PANDU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. DHARNAPPA MOILY, R/AT. NEAR SHISHILA TEMPLE, SHISHILA POST PUTTUR TQ, PIN - 574201.
BOTH ARE R/AT. HOOLLAJE HOUSE, KOKRADY VILLAGE & POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DIST - 574214.
RESPONDENTS 11 AND 12 ARE R/AT: GANDHINAGAR, APINADKA, BALENJA VILLAGE & POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574214.
…RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.137/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.08.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.120/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY, D.K.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:21529 RSA No. 1196 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
judgment and also contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court has to take note of the material available
on record. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession contending that suit schedule properties belong to late Hukra Moily which were his leasehold properties. The said Hukra Moily had four children and after his death, on coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended in the year 1974, late Annu Moily who was the senior most member of aforesaid undivided family has filed application under Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal. After enquiry, the land Tribunal has issued occupancy certificate in favour of said late Annu Moily and defendant No.6 as per order dated 29.08.1981. It is contended that after the above said grant, the properties were cultivated jointly by all the members of the undivided family members. The said Annu Moily died in the year 1982 issueless, his wife Lokamma also died in the year 1989. It is also contended that though he died issueless, it is contended that another son of late Hukra Moily, namely Dharnappa Moily also died in the year 1992 leaving behind his widow Rukmini-defendant No.5 and children, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 as his legal heirs. It is further contended that Babu Moily last son of late Hukra Moily also died long back leaving behind him his widow Sundari-defendant No.7 and the
only son Kitta-defendant No.8, as such defendant No.7 and 8 are entitled for late Babu Moily’s undivided share in the plaint ‘B’ schedule properties.
independent capacity. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the defendants that in the independent capacity of Annu Moily and defendant No.6 the grant was made and it is their very specific case in terms of Exs.P4 and P5 in terms of the statement before the Land Tribunal that they were in joint cultivation of the land from the time of their ancestors. When such averments are made in terms of Exs.P4 and P5, the very contention of the learned counsel that plaintiff will not come within the definition of Family under the Land Reforms Act cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit the appeal and to frame any substantial question of law and both the Courts have taken into consideration the very genesis for the grant that all the ancestors were cultivating the property.
Accordingly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff daughter could claim a share in land granted to the family under Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act despite concurrent findings against her.
Does the Apex Court precedent on tenancy claims by inheritance apply where the grant was made for joint family cultivation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prakash Bharmu Chandgade vs Sou. Suvarna Sikandar Kane and OthersDistinguished¶4
2018 (1) AKR 455
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Limbayya
Susheela
Sunanda
Ananda
Smt. Sharada
Pandu
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
