HONNAMMA & ORS. versus NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 31-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 839 
HONNAMMA & ORS. 
v. 
NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5312-5318 of 2001) 
MARCH 31, 2008 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: 
A 
B 
Form-7 -
Tenant claiming right of occupancy -
Application in Form-7 Amendment in Form-7 to rectify c 
misdescription of land - Claim denied by Land Tribunal -
Appellate authority allowing the claim except in respect of one 
survey number holding that the same needed verification = 
High court rejected claimant's case - On appeal, held: 
Claimant was entitled to occupancy rights - He was a deemed 0 
tenant - The condition precedent for creation of deemed 
tenancy is lawful possession and not payment of rent = 
Amendment in Form-7 cannot be refused on the ground of 
limitation if the amendment is for rectification of mis" 
description of the land - Land Laws and Agr/culturn! T~nancy, 
J; 
s. 121-A - Revision - Scope of= Held: lntwference in 
revision is justified only on very limited grounds vii. Perversity. 
Predecessor-in-interest of the appellantt:M;laimant§ 
filed an application before Land tribunal In Form No·'7 of 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, eli:1imina gccup~mgy F 
rights on specified survey number§ in village 1A', 
Thereafter, he filed an application on 13.4.1961 :;;geking 
amendment of Form-7. The amendment was ftllow@d ftfld 
thereby some land falling In village$ 1M' and 'H' were 
included in Form-7. The owners of tlrn land, gpntested the 
Ql 
claim. The Land Tribunal rejected the claim. 1.em:f Reform~ 
Appellate Authority allowed the i;1ppeal holding theit the 
claimant was the tenant of tha land., App@llate AYthgrity 
also approved the amendment to Fqrm 7 gn the grgyml 
839 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A that the amendment was carried out within limitation. 
However the occupancy rights in respect of one survey 
number of village 'M' was denied holding that inclusion 
of the survey number needed proper verification. High 
Court had earlier dismissed two Revision Petitions 
B against the order of the appellate authority. Revision 
petitions filed by the respondents was allowed by High 
Court, holding that the occupancy rights for the lands 
added by amendment was not permissible. The 
amendment application was barred by limitation; and that 
C the claimant could not be considered as deemed tenant 
as he was not a contractual tenant and was not paying 
rent. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
0 
HELD: 1. A mere mis-description while identifying the 
land in Form no. 7 as originally filed would not be hit by 
-
.,... '.. 
+ 
the embargo with respect to the last date of the filing of 
~ · 
Form no.7 i.e. on 30th June, 1979. A party cannot be 
refused amendment in a case of a mis-description of 
property as the purpose of amendment is to ensure that 
E the real issues are addressed and that in such a case no 
question of limitation would arise and the amended plaint 
must be deemed to have been instituted on the date on 
which the original plaint had been filed. Therefore, the 
finding of the High Court on the question of limitation is 
F erroneous. [Para 8] [847-D-G] 
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material 
Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 1267 - relied on. 
Pakeera Moo/ya vs. Mari Bhat ILR 1999 Kar. p. 809 -
G distinguished. 
H 
2. A comparative reading of Sections 121 and 121-A 
of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 would show that 
the High Court's power has been circumscribed to 
satisfying itself as to the legality of the order impugned 
HONNAMMA & ORS. v. NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD 
841 
BY HIS LRS. & ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BED!, J.) 
--""., 
...... • "?' 
and to the regularity of the proceedings. Interference in A 
revision on facts would be justified only on very limited 
grounds such as perversity and that if the view taken by 
the Appellate Authority was possible on the evidence, it 
would be inappropriate on the part of the High Court to 
differ in its conclusions. [Para 11] [848-H; 849-A-B] 
.,, 
B 
+ 
3: High Court was deeply impressed by the fact that 
the claimant had not been paying rent at the time when 
the application in Form No. 7 had been filed. All that is 
required for the person to claim the status of a deemed 
tenant is that the possession must be lawful, but there is c 
nothing which would necessitate the payment of rent ·as 
a condition precedent for the creation of a deemed 
tenancy. The finding of the High

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.