IN THE HIGH coma? or KARNATAKA AT u
mmn was THE 7w DAY or xovsmngré-2093. V' ' L
PRESENT I "
ms HOWBLE M3. 9.1:. ramaxarm __ '»,§13a1*zé;§..%»I' '
THE KOIWBLE M,RfJUSf1'ICE v;G.§A3iiAzm5
wnrr APPEAL"Fit-.A 1--9_;3;§«§iVof":2 (_m;'7_~11_,1_z)
VARAD:'_§PPA €;:H1MA APPAIAH
s/0 NARA¥ANAPFA.' Q;r.;J'osAHA'LLi
MAJQR, AC%El3*A13C}U'I'*v6Uvv-YEARS,
R/ATJDIMBALA \«'ii;.LAGE;
ROUNURLI HoB*LI,"a' _ '
SR'INIVASP!.}RA VTALU-K,' * "
Ko;A§:2F.D1sTRs.¢T.' '
A 'Wm VARADAPPA @ CWNNA APPAIAH
V' 1»1AJoR;"v.aGETD,ABOUT 57 YEARS
'R/'A"r.Dtm'13Ai:,A VELLAGE,
R(');{JN{.I~R¥ ,1 HCJBLI,
SRINIVASPURA TALUK,
nKDLAR._.I}IS'I'RI(3"f'.
MUNIYAMMA
'W/ O VARADAPPA @ CH§NNA APPAIAH,
EIIAJOR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
' R/A'I21:>1MBALA VILLAGE,
ROUNURU HOBLI, _:\
SRINIVASPU RA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT. *
APPELLANTS.. '
ADV.)
1 THESTATEOFKARNA,_'I'11.KA5_ ~ A A
REP.BYI'I'S SECRE'I'AR'i{,9 i
DEPARTMENT OF' REV13N"U.E,v__ A
VIDHANA SOUDHA, "
BANGALORE'; _
2 THE LAN1§_RI§F'Qi§1§kI5'f1§.5'1?i'i}'i'I}§IA";
REP.BvYA..ITS"'SECE3:Ef1'A.RY,' A '
SRINEVASAEVRA '§ffALUI<i,., _'
KOLAR ni3':'R1'e.::fix A 'A
3 G VENKATARAVANA REDADY
S / 0 _ 1.ATE.G0?ALAPPA ' "
~ R}LA*r.:s1LARAvAMA "'~-'-'sLA VILLAGE,
" ROUNURIJ 3031.1,
.'SRiNIVAS?UARA TALUK,
KQLAR éflsrrfezcr.
V RESPONDENTS
(By Sri {L3 VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R1 81. R2; SR1 B A REESAPPA,
" ~ :A';.w; FOR R3}
A 7'7g'r §:?s WRIT APPEAL $8 FILED {HS 4 022' THE KARNATAKA
I Hf?}fi..COUR'F AC1'I' PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
' INVTHE WRIT' PFYFITION N€).5'?/2004» DATED 39/8] 2007.
,1
T$"("ITA|
z/'E? -- ' \3
Rx =._{ ' .
,/"
Q/V /,-.
(By Sri: N DEVADASS, SR. ADV. FOR spit' mxq '§(EhI«E{AjT6. §?:::*.§:)I3°2I, J
-3-
TEHS weir APPEAL COMING UP FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT EEi,,iVERED_ fi'_I'HE
P'OLLOWINC}:--' r "
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by P.D.Dina1¢j::.eraz::t ,’rQ.t5;:) , – _ ”
The appea} is directed leased? sow’
August 2007 made in Writ pet:tie{eeNo,$7/2004,genera the
claim of respondents~3 V_ eeeupancy rights of
the impugned land _tt7e_.s heeed__e:1 specific finding
recorded at A Gfwfiie order, which reads as
_ “6.V’ ‘i’he”I,eVp,dA has wrongly observed
A n,e3:e.e’—ef third respondent appears in
re’een:tie._vrecords for the year 1973-74. As a
the name of the third respondent
Ifletr in the revenue records in the
yeer.. iQ73«74. His name came to be entered for
V’ “tl1e_rf’1I e’t time in the year 1978. In the year 1973«~
A’ ‘~_V’i’4 1974475 the name of Venkatamma
. Vv___§nether of respondents N034 and 5 appears in
the revenue records. As has been held by this
Court the said Venkatamma and petitioner are
the joint family members. Venkatattnna
represented the joint family property of
petitioner and the respondents J
reievant time.
7. The ‘I’ribuna1 has e
observing that the petitioner “the’=-4 ‘
tenancy of respondent
the deposition of the peti.tioI1er~-._V Pe.’iitiQI1CIf_.:§ no
where admits the tei1eifi.ey “resfieodent No.3.
On the other hand, before
the Land that; ‘the~41,isi1fr:; C1’§s’of coconut
No.3. The said
submission’ to admission of
tenency.”e.._ T’heV’ questioii of tenancy has to be
cietemiined ee..V_oi1 1.3.1974. There are absoluteiy
” no” t9eeord’S~1_’.o shoe?’ that the respondent No.3 was
“the’te;1ers€’of”§he joint family. In this View of the
“:ué1tter order of the Land Tribune: is liable to
be””qoéi.s!hef;i and the appfimtion filed by the third
..reeponcient for grant of occupancy right is liabie
to rejected. Accordingly, following order is
‘made:
Form No.7 fiieci by the third respondent is
dismissed. The order of the Land Tribunal
dt.3 1.10.2003 is quashed. Writ petiuon;llvisf-,,,
2; The relevant fact, which de¢sdes};h¢*«ra’,:¢sof zrleease,
is based on the question of’ tena;o;t?y’,”‘ Whicli L.
determined as on 1.3.1974. the order
referred to above, the herein,
namely, the are respondent..§n_ did not appear
in the 3-74 and his name
came to only in the year 1978.
The recorded a finding that in
the year F37 the name of one Venkatamma,
isv-Vicrfiorgeizllelessxlfhe”mother-irl-law of the first appellant
he1*ei3oL”l’12:1:o§her of appellantsa and 3 herein, alone
i V’ The Counsel now produces the record of
« -4 ;i’ig__h-»ts wherehhihe name of the appellants are entered into but
rleoncedes that the said records were not produced
the learned Single Judge for his appreciation.
4 -., .Ia’ V _
3. If that is so, except to mrnait the
approach the iearmd Single Judge seeking _
order, We do not see airy merit to ezfitexiam
appeal Hence, the appeal is d1smis.$}ed.’&”- ‘
% usfice
Judge
1m;% vague.