(At.> F/ IN t-IE HIaH CuURT 0? &4.RNA ma AT bANCL0RE TED THIS THE 16Th DAY OP AJ.IL, 1998. BEFORE THE HQN’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. P JTiJTEsHA MURThI L,R.B,.P,No,412W1989_‘w 4459/1989 In L,R.ñ.P.No.4122J1989 BhRgeernthi Wfa Rain Bhat Since deceased by L}1, Varadha W/o danapathi Hegde aged about 40 years, agriculturist, We Taggin Ba1agr Siddapur Taluk, u,iç rnstrict. .PETITIONER (By Sri .Bshririivasa, Sri B.V.Krishna Swaniy Rac, and Sri S. R.Hege Hudlarnane, Advocates) In L,R. R.p,To,4459/1989 Laxininanyana Timrnayya Hegde, Age: Major, agriculturist, r/o Thggin Balagar Village in Siddapur Taltak, U_ Di strict. ?9T “Tfl.’WJ , La:n (By Sri S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate) if — 2 :— A ND: — 1, The Land Tribunal Siddapar represented by it 5 chaiman siddapur Taluk, cJ.LDist. 2. The 3tate of arnataka represented by its Secretary Revenue Depa rent, Jidhana Soudha, iangaiore. 3. tnachandra ser 1 kcatrarnar 4 Hegde, age Major, A griculturust, We Hosabale, Tataguni Village sirsi Taluk, U. K. Dist. asorD’Ts ARE ,.coiaiow IN BoTh mii PETITIONS, (By Sri LI.Bbtta, Adv,, for R-3, and t.Shanthakunz., HOiP for R1 and R2) These C,B.P’s. filed Wa 121—A of the Karnataka Land Hefos ct, a gainst the order dated 9.6,1989 passed in D.A.A,A—AP 47/87 on the file of the District Addi. Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi, allow ing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Siddapur U,K, in TNC DSR 2—1879—7129 dated &. 7.9.87, and etc These r.etitions coming up for hearing og this day, the Court made the following: ORDER 1 hese two revisions are by a person who claim to be a sub tenant under the mulgenidar,aa alienate pendentelite from the petitioner in 1* respect of lands in T agginabelagar village. 0 anapathi, t ae and Bhagirathi are brothers and sisters. Ganapethi and aa were .zlgenidars. Rae the brotj)er died uaqrrjed. Ganapethi died leavagbehind his widow Kahalkali.h 25.14943 Nabslkali trasferred the half algeni rights is wQ:rror 2 hagisatbi. P4her of 2./Ranechandra Venkatrimea Hegde (L3) the mennr of the jroperties in question had taken mortgage Os the silgeni rights from Ganapathi ,nd Rams on 22.11.1922. Ramachandra Venktreen Hegde inetituted O.&.95/1952 a 1 ,ainst Ganapathi and 1 sme for reuw cry of the mortgage •oney and obtained a decree for recry of the ass on 14.4.19)2. Ez.486/1936 was filed for sale of the salgeni rights end the decree holder on 1.fl.1943 p2. chased the mulgeni rights in the Court auction. Raving thus secured the salgeni right the decree-holder sued out execution and obtain possession on 14.6.1947. Ehagirathi who had secured the half i]geni rights from the widow of Ganapathi nade a tenancy application 10.116/1947 before the Nam].thedar complaining a —4— of interference with her possession of Ut property in question by the third respondent and the 8a was dismissed by the Lahaildar on 30.9.1947. Again %agirsthi made application No.145—100-54—55 before the Née ithedar and the Namsithedar granted deelara.ion on iO.a.1959 that she had the aulgeni right in the land, ?hereaft.r the matter Cam up to the Hii Court is C.R.P.29/1962. the appli cation filed by Bbagirathi for dec].srabion of her status gsa tenant a. rejected by this Court as not maintainable beore the Masalthedar. 3. Meanwhile the third respondent flied an applicaion for injànction againat Bhagirathi claiming that she vga a treaspesser. The Mamaithedar rejected the pdtition on the round that the third respondent has secured possession in execution of the mortgag. decree. ?hereafter the third respondent instituted 0.S.lb,/1953 for possession of the is iii on the ground that Shagirathi had treaspassed on the land and occupied it. t he suit waS numbered as 0.8.1/19(2 and on trial was decreed as prayed for, Theappeal filed by 3 hggiratbi £.A.192/1972 was dismissed confining S 4: —5— the Juugment and decree of the trial Court. Bhagiratbi’s appeal in this Court in R.S.A. N 0 .400/19i4 was disposed of on 7..19BO directing the trial Court to make a reference to the land Tribunal for adjudication of tie claim of Bhagirahi to tenancy of the operty. Admittedly the third respondent lost possession of the lands witnin one year of the date of delivery trirough opurt and that is how he sought possession in the Cji, il Cjrt. 4. On a reference by the Civil Court to the land Tribunal the IandTribunal conferred Occuflcy rights on the petitioner.Bhagirathi on the pound that she was in possession of the land as on I.3.i974. Third thiru respondent appealed to the Lan... Retorz Appellate Authonty, Sirsi in D.A.A.A.4(/19t37. The Land Rfor Apsllate Authority by its order dated 9.6.1989 set aside the order of the Land £ribunal and held that the applicaion for occuncy rights filed by the petitioner herein— Bhagirathi and the second respondent before the Laud Refor Appellate Authority, Laxminarayana Thimmaish Hegde, were not entitled to occupancy riits. In these r.visions the decision of the Land I C Reor Appellate Authority is assailed. T he contention on behglf of the petitions is that nnlgeni rights of Hahn hkali were assigned to %agirathi and on the day she was sou 6 ht to be aispsessed by a degree of the Courts ihe Bombay hnancy Act of 1939 had eume into force and only the )bal.thedar could evit the petit mist— 5 hagirathi. Consequently, the dispossession by the&rt was of a, effeet and 6 haginthi .ontinaed to be in possession of the land as a nalgenidar entitled to registration as an occupant under the Land tt eform Act. 5. It is now beyond controversy that the Bombay T .nancy Act of 19* was asic applicable to different districts of the then State of Bombay on various dates and the entire State WgS covered only about.11.4.1946. The contentien of the petit loner that Kaaalthedar was the only authority to dispossess a tenant is based em 8 ectxon 11 of the Bombay ?enancy Act. Section ii or the Bombay T ena noy Act protects only rights conferred on aprotected tenant. t he case that is sought to be made out by the petitioner could —1— not come within the ambit of 3 ect ion 11 of the bombay renancy A 0t had to be oozceede4 by the conndtl for the petit ionr after a considerable argument. It has o be noticed that the Bowisy Tenancy Act of 1939 would be applicable to tenancy subsisting on the day the Act came into force, It was not aisputed,and indeed it cannot be dioputed 5 that the {4zlgeni rights as on the day was sold in Court èuction could be validly sold there bins no ‘ohibition in 1w then existing agirt sale of such mulgeni right. Mahakali the lee.al representative of the deceased uulgenidgr atter the decree and before it was wt into execution parted with half the mulgeni right in favour ot Bhagirabhi. when the entire right was sold there was nothing left for Bhagirathi to agitate. All that Ehagirathi secureci by the settlement in her favour was tue right to pay the mortgage money and SavC the proptrty at any tiiae before the sale stood confirmed. Ahen once the sale stood confirmed the mulgeni rights or the preSftcessors in title of Shagirathi and Mqhalakali stood vested in the third respondent and there was no sembeence oj- right a hagirathi -a- to press her possession within a iasure of lawfulness. Ehus it is clesr that no provsston of the Bomoay Tenancy Act op.rated as a bar against the sale or delivery of the proporty which was the subject or the nazigeni tenancy, When once the relation of mulgenidar and the Muldar vested in the same PcrSOn,aS in this case by the purchase of the ailgeni rights by the third respondent, all rights or Mahakali and her successors in interest stood extinguished. When once the Court delivered possession of the -t J€r.nct Jtrj UkA ttz.. - Lwci Li prop rt y to h—oetaoaeenlon—of—t4e-i.and ,ctc a o’r. o1a±ming—a---nJgenS-&gkt, .f subsequently hagirauni tresspasson the land in assertion or an alleged unAlgeni right such act of tresspass would not invest Bhagirathi’s possession flth any lawfulness. Indeed that is the reason why Bhagira,hi also sought to set upsubsequent 17t ‘S’’’ ‘ tenancy it her possession,whicb was not pressed into consiaerstion in these revisions, Having r_gard to these cin.umsances, it is cleat that Ehagiratbi’s claim to mulgeni rights under Mahalakali was unsustainable, The Land Refor —9— Appellate Authority rights held that Bhagirathi t s claim was untenable. If hagirabi could not ar did not Secure any right, the cim through Bhsgitathi LLakshminarayana Hegde can get no better title. Consequently both the revisions have to fail. No other grounds wre urged against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. Revisions are therefore, dismissedwith costs. JUDGE