Smt Kamalawwa Vaddar vs Smt Anasuya Mallappa Sorab on 24 April, 2009

*1"
IN THE azga coma? 0? KARNRTAKA_w " 

CIRCUZT BENCH AT DHARwAm f""vT~"

DATED yazs THE 24" DAY QF A§§1zf2QG9*_  

§REsENT,
THE HON'BLE MR.J@ST1cE'K.:.MAN§G§A@Es3
  

Tag HON'BLE MR.JfiSTICE{3 §}:SATYANARAYANA

WRIT AP§EAL.$0}3§32iQ¢§ {LR}

BETWEEN

Smt.Kamalawwa.Vaddafl}_ .'

Wfo Tippanna_Vaddar; "_

Aged abcut.53 years; ""

R/0 Naganux;vMundargi Taluk,
Kaxwa§_Dist§iCi. ' ." AP§EL&RNT

 gB§"9§i}E}v; HIREMATH, ADV.)

 3&Q. ~ ~"

l.'M_Smt}Rnasuya Mailappa Sarah,
N/Q Mallappa,
_TL Rgéd about $6 yea:$,
V"gR/0 Setagodi Kappa,
fmufidargi Taluk,
Karwar Bistrict.

2. The Land Tzibunal,
Mundagod,
Kaiwar Diafirici,



By'its Secretary.

3. The Staté GE Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Revenue}
M.S. Building, *, ;"»* ' '=_ pg «_
Bamgaloze. V gv", RES§QNDENTS*

<3; S:'i.K. B. Ad?:yapék, }X<j\r...    R3}

This writ appealvis..f:"iled'«2_m;§i¢r'4 4 of tha High Court
Act, against the order dated. 20;'12:2€)Q7' passed by this oomt in
WR1207/2003 (L.R),an{;£-"t:t:§~~--"acc<:;unt Qf amemdmené; to the

"'aLafi¢*;Ref©rms ~£ct and on establishmeni af

i &p§e2la€é"Au?hority the matte: was remanded is

theii&andf_§eforz@ Appellate &uthQrity and in

i res§&Cfi: af bath the surveyi numbera the

"f0ccflpancy'right8 were Confirmed.

2. Tha mdlcrdi filed a revisiaw; befsza

{ii

tha Eigh Court in ERR?.i36§fi989 and the same

fig,



-4-

was allowed on merits and tfie ord@r;<fif hthe

a eliate authorit 39 far as $W-Nb)2a was
 } AA 2 _, ,

Confirmed and it was set_aside;ifi"Iés§eCt=of»

Sy.No.5. The matter wés £remandea' fi%m¢%%€

Tribunal for fresh c0nsideratiQn._1$he*Tribuna}'

rejected the claim of the petitiohar 1% respect
of Sy.N0.5. Theréfore; fine betitianer filed a

writ petitién" in 'hQP}l2G?f2Q?3 befsre the
learned $i5glé,Judg2I, Thé learned Single Judge
aonsifiéfingg fifié"a$turé"W©f dispute and the
relatianéhip.'betweé§ ,the garties heid that

Sy.No.5 was'neVe£ 3"temantad land and the same

"*,wa§,;n_oCcup$tisn of tha Kwther--im-iaw of the

V_appE3lafit"_§y way of usufguctuaxy mortgage.

Rcgfirdifigifl the writ gatition. was diamiased.

'¢Cha1iefiging fihe Said order the Qresent appeai

 'filed.

"*2

5. we h&ve haaxd the iaarned Cmunael ffif

<9



..5....

4. Concurrently, the Tribune} asT@eiIges

the learned Single Judge have held that éeézé,

is no jural relationship of landlord and teneett

between the parties. The leerfied Single Euege

while confirming the order of the Tribfifiel has

Come to the coeclua;on;that'the fié§%駧§gre1ied

upen by the appelleet%7ie__ifiy the nature efi
ueufruetue:y* mortgage; g"7&QCofdingly, he has

coefirmefl ::efe2der;,"»jg'

3._.Ee§e;ee me; .the appellant has not
placed ueey zeateriéi "to show' that the iearned

Siagie Judfie flee eemmitted error in confirming

t:,e etéetgfl The Land Tribunal hee refieeted the

"epelieétgefi "of the appellant's mother--ie~1aw

which Bee been cenfirmed by the learned Single
. 

‘_ Judge) We ate cf the View that in intra ceert
e “R b

‘aepeal this eourt caneet tightly interfere wite

“”*the etder” of the leazned. Single Judge unless

gs/,

“weekei:

-5-
and until it is shown that an ertqt, is

cemmitted by the learned Single Judge;”l

In the result the appeal is diSfiieeed;V_fheJ”

parties te bearing their cestege

In View of the dlemlssel of tee epgeal et
the stage ef ad§iSSiQfi@n W§v eel 59;} gee any
reasons to lsefieltneticelfee’,lAJl/2068 for
condoning the delay? bf _§ cfiefiel la filing the
appeal. _,ithetefet¢}{:tfiefleai& application is
also l

Tee ‘leeefigfefirggvernment fidvecete is

permitted ts file meme of eppeeranee within two

Sd/-‘
Judge

Sd/-_N
Judge

*sub/