High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Vanitha @ Gayathri vs K Narasimha Shenoy S/O K Keshava … on 12 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Vanitha @ Gayathri vs K Narasimha Shenoy S/O K Keshava … on 12 January, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH comer or KARNATAKA AT  =   

DATED THIS THE 12'"1)AY0F    E

  %
TIE HON'BLE MR. 1usTic§:%}mAisrn 
gmwam:    %

1. Smt.Vaai1h$.@A3:3?333.1fif!i    if  AA 

W/o:?;aya;xt1'~ia!§sl:;g'%v%    '

3. Sim. su;a.a,44   
Wig   "

   

. at C./,o_r N. K. Shoaoy
Binge  Ram laugh

%  N-:s.A.".5y  (W)

 39.},  Dimict

*  Afl1eirG.£*A Hakim
 Sri'.-,I(. Umanaih Pai, 81 yws
 S:--'e=K. Anna Pai, Migor

 at Pmkwingmii

Mangalom-S75 003  PETTTIONERS

(By Shri. B. L. Aeharya, Advwale)

6



    W-'w9%adi S?4"'i4é».«~'

S-  % y, 32 years

-- if   j§  ' K; 65 years
%    wig Late K. Kmnaksha shenoy

   L -----Mangai0re~575 cm
% ' 7. Mangalon: TalukI.andTribuml

AND:

I. K. Narasimha Shcnoy

84 years, Merchant
Slo Sri K. Keshava Shcnoy  

2. Sri. Baburaya Shcnoy
76 years, Merchant   
S/1.1 Sri. Keshava Shcnnqyf _ 

3- K.GopalaShen1_ay, _  V V.
S/0 Sri.Kes1§xm=a;V'$§1eniqy€  ~  ' 
 ' .

4. K.  
S10 Late _V Shenoy
Residing at Old 'Main Road

 ._ Sig   Shenoy
Rgz-zidcgt Mannagudde
Manga§9re4575 003

V" Resitiemi. of Mamzagudde

By its Chairman, Mmgalore
Daksflna Kammla District

8



repair, ultimately is not in exisicnce mw except   4

Imus in the compound, as is uommtmifi    

therein.

The petitioners  salt: in flavour of
N.A.Pai, the peggiagms ms  ofthc land
at all points 9?   and the petitioners
lacing   :9 the estate. The land

was -iwami" V     at any pu»m' ioftime.

%%%$ha?%N.A?ai§%%aunfng his life time, had filed an application

     thai every nnzulagcni terms!

 such an application. Thereafiez', he had

     pmpcdy was non-agricultural land and would not

'    the gmsdsceim who Land Tribumi and had sought for

@



In this state of aflhirs, respondent-l, who  

susgxandcnis 2 to 4, put-femavard a Tisr ltgriantzff ‘

sehudase land by filing an application in pm. %z::

Farm No.7, lhe respondent-1 uf V

the peliiioncrs – N.A.Pai ;m ;..v.,.,;,. the said
Fora} m.7, claimed by
land has ggé late N.A-Pai, though no

Itf-§1’3¢:fi<i£.*r§i-1A,."-i:V: ".t.x:3}usi13n with respondents -2 to 4,

bmlhers has been able £0 Pmduoe

tilled as rent rwcipls, in pmve

_tcna§i3y the nsspondcm-2 and [he £~l. It is

' W H __ mooiageni right having been purchased by N.A.Pai

mo-oiagars, the question of respondent-I paying rents in

A % %L%%%;:isTm1m, resptmdcnt-2 mid not arise at an, unhsss nmolageni

%

land in favour of Psi, would raise the pm:;umpi.um'

active collusion in defeating the right cf '

under Pai. Secondly, the land gs m..;g;m

I findm 8 on 0116 basis of end ev1d6!'!U*" mfive..§il 'a thai V

the land is agricullmal is thcnsfom,

liable In be set at naught 2 '

4. would submit lhal
{he let in by the in
auiving ~ is a rvaiationship of tenancy

mspondenl-2. This is evidenced

produced anti lhctufom, there is no

% j x : Iii’ fine above fatsis and cin:z:mstaa4:es, the tmdisputed rm

that uaoolqeni rights had hem: cmnibned on N.A.Pa;i

T whom [he petitioner claims. There is no zaaterial evidence

aputt from the alleged mm rweipts to evi%c lhai

10

[here was a further transfer of this moolageni .

of vale muuiageni :1!’ by way of m§;i:_iIag¢:m’_ Ht’:=sfu ‘ T

resp1mdcnl—2. H the transfer wgss

by a mgisamd has been
uvcriouked by the it was transfer
by voia with rcfemncc lo
the 19 have confened such
right on in being enabled in

do so. In ékmunwnl in favour of respondent

_ 52, it we the Tfibamal could have primal rm-.

a:t_ a fixiding as to than-. existing any relationship of

‘ H ~ s fly, the finding as to the character of the land being

its aim no! on the basis of mataial documents. The

T of fruit bearing trees on the land, by Sisal}: would not

4 csiabiish the wt that the lands are agdcullural in character. In line

é

11

time of othm’ documents including the origins}

under which the land is described as oi’-at V’ ‘

It is, therefore, M953,-sary that

with regard to the mutant” or
moolagenidam, in the the claim of
“”3I”–“1d<'»fli~2 IQ' i-'i:s£:s}'.' to ttirieierzresgxmdent «-1 is not
evidenced receipts in E! claim as
was essential tint the amine

be evideneeatby It is, thensfore, necessary

'V R31' Secondly, insofar as the character

' , this Ins also been eursority examined by

not in order. Hence, the second question as

to of the land wouid aim have to be examined with

. .f .3, the material that may be pmauwd by the

Accordingly, the writ petititm is allowed and the order of

Y ' the Tsibunat at Annexure–A is quashed. The matter is mmmiea

£3

12

to the: Land Tribuuai for a nuooasidcmiicm

aoourdamx: with law in the light V’

hereinabove. A11;xx.¢enas.msornmpan.es’ % 2 % L

IN’