Ishwaragouda & Ors vs Mallikarjun Gowda & Ors

2. The relevant facts, as arising from the case made out by the appellants, which would assist us in appreciating the controversy involved are narrated in a nutshell, which are as follows:

3. The disputed land bearing RS No. 40 measuring 18 acres 32 guntas was an agricultural land belonging to one Laxmibai, situated in Harlapur village in Gadag taluka. After the death of Smt. Laxmibai, her grand sons inherited the said land and it was under cultivation of the predecessor in title of the appellants and the respondents. After coming into operation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (in short "the Act"), Basanagowda, the father of the respondents filed Form No. 7 under the Act for grant of occupancy rights on the ground that they were in actual cultivation of the entire land. Parwategowda, the father of the appellants, simultaneously also filed an application under Form No. 7 claiming that the said land was being 2 cultivated jointly by the family, i.e. the family of Basanagowda, the father of the respondents, and Parwategowda, the father of the appellants. Both the above- mentioned applications were registered on the file of Land Tribunal, Gadag. On 21st of November, 1976, the Land Tribunal passed orders holding that Basanagowda and Parwategowda were jointly cultivating the lands and were entitled to occupancy rights in the said land. Aggrieved by the said order of the Land Tribunal, the respondents filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka being WP No. 2088 of 1977. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 17th of December, 1982, inter alia, holding that the disputed land was taken on cultivation jointly by the family and that it was in joint cultivation. However, for demarcation of half portion of the disputed land, the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal. The respondents thereafter filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed by an order dated 6th of June, 1983. Meanwhile, the Land Tribunal after being remanded back the matter for demarcation of the 3 disputed land between the parties by the High Court, allotted southern half portion to Parwategowda and his family and the Northern half portion to Basanagowda and his family by its order dated 3rd of January, 1985. Against the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority being L.R. Appeal No. 1687 of 1986 which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 14th of September 1987.

4. Against the said judgment and order, the respondents preferred a civil revision petition being CRP No. 5632 of 1987 before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, inter alia, observing that the party prejudiced can approach a civil court to claim exclusive possession of the disputed land. On the basis of such an observation, the respondents thereafter filed a suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of the disputed land being O.S No. 131 of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge, Gadag. The Civil Judge by its judgment decreed the suit holding that it had the jurisdiction to 4 decide as to whether it was a joint family property or an individual property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the civil judge, the appellants herein filed an appeal before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of title and possession, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal. The respondents filed a Second Appeal in the High Court against the aforesaid judgment passed in the appeal. Relying on a decision of this Court, in Balawwa & Anr. vs. Hasanabi & Ors. [(2000) 9 SCC 272], the High Court set aside the judgment of the appellate court and allowed the appeal remanding back the matter to the first appellate court directing it to decide the matter in accordance with law in view of the observations made by the High Court.

9. Thus in view of the aforesaid decision, we hold that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide as to whether the joint family or one of the members was a tenant, when that question was considered finally and authoritatively on merits by the Land Tribunal Gadag. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, was perfectly justified in view 12 of ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 133 of the Act, in setting aside the judgment of the trial court to this extent. Consequent thereupon, we are, therefore, also of the view that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad on an appeal preferred by the respondents.

11. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court thereby restoring the judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of title as it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal.

12. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.