ORDER
1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against the order of the First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharwar in R.A. No. 18 of 1995 challenging the remand of the case to the Trial Court with a direction to refer issues 2 and 6 to the Land Tribunal for adjudication.
2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of a house and two agricultural lands enumerated in the plaint schedule. The defendant, who is unrepresented in this Court, contested the plaintiff’s right to seek partition of the properties claimed in the plaint. The issue No. 2 related to the claim of the plaintiff that the properties are joint family properties in the possession of the joint family. Issue No. 6 related to the claim of the defendant that R. Sy. No. 196 measuring 8 acres and 10 guntas is his exclusive property and consequently not liable for partition. The learned Munsiff examined the respective contentions of the parties, and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her half share to be worked out in accordance with law and also directed that the income from the properties quantified at Rs. 10,000/- per annum be given to an extent of half share in favour of the plaintiff since the year 1989.
3. The defendant filed R.A. No. 18 of 1995 contesting the decree of the Trial Court. The learned Civil Judge by the impugned judgment and decree set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court with a direction that issues 2 and 6 regarding the tenancy of the land be referred to the Trial Court to ascertain whether the tenancy was a joint family tenancy or not. Hence, this appeal.
4. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mudakappa v Rudrappa, wherein the issue regarding the nature of the tenancy as to whether it was a joint family tenancy or exclusive tenancy was examined and the Supreme Court observed that having regard to the exclusive jurisdiction of the land
Tribunal to decide on the issue of tenancy the question as to whether the tenancy was a joint family tenancy or not would also have to be decided by the Land Tribunal. The facts of the case on which the Supreme Court rendered this finding would show that in a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent’s uncles therein from interfering with the possession of the property, a plea of tenancy was raised. On account of the amendment of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the allied provisions, during the pendency of the suit, the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to determine whether the land was an agricultural land or not and whether it was tenanted or not was vested exclusively in the Land Tribunal and the Civil Court was barred from deciding those issues. Having regard to the fact that during the pendency of the suit, the amendment of the Land Reforms Act took place, the issue relating to tenancy had to be referred to the Land Tribunal for adjudication. With the proposition of law as laid down in Mudakappa’s case, supra, there can be no controversy raised at all.
5. Under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, all tenanted land as on 1-3-1974 stood vested in the Government by virtue of Section 44 of the Act. Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act has made provision for tenants being registered as occupants of the lands with certain conditions. Section 48-A of the Act provides for enquiry by the Tribunal and the procedure therefor and other allied provisions. Section 55 of the Act pertains to issue of a certificate of registration in favour of the person who has been registered as an occupant and it provides that the certificate shall be conclusive evidence of such registration and is required by law to be registered under the Registration Act or any other law. When a certificate of registration has been issued, it is clear that the certificate is conclusive evidence of such registration. A person for whom a certificate of registration is issued has to be an occupant of the land who is entitled to deal with the property in whatsoever manner he likes subject to the restrictions contained regarding alienation of the property. The moment, a person is registered as an occupant by virtue of an order of the Land Tribunal, the nature and character of the possession which was of the occupant will be that of an owner of the property subject to restrictions provided in the Land Reforms Act. The tenancy which stood obliterated by the operation of Section 44 of the Act gets enlarged into full ownership of the property. The plea as to whether the erstwhile tenancy was joint family tenancy or otherwise would have to be examined only for purpose of ascertaining whether the occupancy rights conferred on the tenant is a property to the joint family or otherwise. When once the Land Tribunal passed an order conferring occupancy rights in accordance with law, it becomes functus officio and the question of determination of the nature of the tenancy incidentally, at a subsequent point of time, as in this case, would not arise for consideration except for determination of the rights interse between the members of the family.
6. In Veerabhadrappa Totappa Bilebal v Virupaxappa Totappa Bilebal, an identical situation was examined and it held, relying upon a
Division Bench decision of this Court in RFA No. 189 of 1996, which distinguished Mudakappa’s case, supra, that after a grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, it is for the Court to examine the nature of the right claimed by the parties. In the instant case, there was nothing that the Land Tribunal had to do, or indeed could do, after it made a final order conferring occupancy rights on the defendant-respondent herein. The question as to whether the acquisition of the right claimed by the defendant by virtue of the grant made by the Land Tribunal is one that accrues to the benefit of the joint family or not has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The opinion of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, that the question has still to be referred to the Land Tribunal is a misconception and cannot be sustained. This makes the remand of the case to the Trial Court for reference of issues 2 and 6 to the Land Tribunal unsustainable. The learned Civil Judge would have to examine on the material on record regarding the correctness of the finding of the Trial Court about the joint family nature of the property or not and decide the matter in accordance with law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree in R.A. No. 18 of 1995 is set aside and the First Appellate Court shall hear the parties and dispose of the matter on merits.