AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal
The petitioner is not entitled for any relief on two counts, One is that the impugned order is passed in the year 1980 and the other is that the petitioners'' ancestors had suffered a decree at the hands of the Civil Court in O.S. No. 230/1992.
Matter arises in the following manner:
Both the petitioners claim that they come from agriculturist family. It is their case that the husband of first petitioner and the father of second petitioner one Shanthaveri Muddaiah was the owner of the land Desiring Sy. No. 42/1A measuring 19 guntas, The original applicant one Venkatesh makes an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. The claim made by the original applicant is in respect of Sy. No. 42/6 A measuring 15 cents. The Land Tribunal, pursuant to the impugned order has granted occupancy rights to an extent of 15 guntas in Sy. No. 42/6A and an extent of 19 guntas in Sy. No. 42/ 1A.
The contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that there is no claim in report of Sy. No. 42/1A measuring 19 guntas. He submits that since there is no claim in respect of Sy. No. 42/ 1A to an extent of 19 guntas, the impugned order to that extent is liable to be interfered.
Mr. A S. Mahesha, learned Counsel for respondents submits that the spot inspection was conducted and it was found that the original applicant was in possession of land to an extent of Sy. No. 42/6A measuring 15 cents Sy. No. 42/ 1A measuring 19 cants. Hence, the occupancy rights are granted. He further submits that the impugned order is passed in the year 1980 and a suit was also filed in the year 1992 as against the grand father of the second petitioner. Hence, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that they were not aware of the proceeding.
Apparently, it is to be noticed that the original applicant on being conferred with the occupancy rights has filed O.S. No. 230/1992 as against one Mudda, S/o. Marigyathaiah and Naga, S/o. (sic) A perusal of the judgment would disclose that the subject matter of the suit was Sy. No. 42/lA and Sy. No. 42/6A measuring 19 and 15 guntas respectively situated at Doddakabballi Village. The grajid father of second petitioner entered appearance through a Counsel but however did not (sic) to file a written statement. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suit, Indeed, the claim of the petitioners is only through their grand father and genealogy is also made available at Annexrure ''A'' It would disclose that Marigyathaiah @ Mudda and his wife Basamma had four children namely, Mudda, Chikkanna, (sic) and Naga. Muddaia''s branch is claiming certain rights in the family. First petitioner is the wife of Mudda and the second petitioner is the son. Indeed, the first petitioner and second petitioner and Mudda claim their rights only through Marigyathaiah and his wife Bassamma since deceased.
I am of the view that the petitioners'' grand father having suffered a decree at the bands of the Civil Court were in know of the things. I am of the view that question of interference does not arise. Patition. stands rejected.
Mr. Shashkihar S. Karamadi, leaned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.