KANNA TIMMA KANAJI MADIWAL (D) THROUGH LRS. versus RAMACHANDRA TIMMAYA HEGDE (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 768 · Decided: 27-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
KANNA TIMMA KANAJI MADIWAL (D) THROUGH LRS.
v.
RAMACHANDRA TIMMAYA HEGDE (D)
THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1300-1301 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Land laws and agricultural tenancies:
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: ss. 21, 24, 48A, 61 –
Grant of occupancy rights – Claim for – Assignment of tenancy
rights by way of bequeath – On facts, appellant’s father, brother
of the original tenant, inducted as tenant in the land belonging to
the respondent by the original tenant – Appellant’s father
cultivating the land due to ill health of the original tenant and paid
rent to the respondents on behalf of his brother – Will executed by
the original tenant bequeathing his properties in favour of
appellant’s father – Mutation of land in the name of appellant’s
father however, the same was objected by the original tenant’s wife
and she got the entry of land in her favour – Suit filed by
appellant’s father for declaration of possessory title and injunction
against original tenant’s wife with reference to Will – Suit decreed
in favour of appellant’s father and attained finality – Another
round of litigation wherein application u/s. 48-A of the Act of 1961
filed by appellant’s father for grant of occupancy rights in respect
of the land in question – Application prosecuted by the appellant
after demise of his father – Rejection of application as also appeal
thereagainst – Revision petition and the review petition before the
High Court also dismissed – High Court held that the bequeathing
of all the properties by the original tenant by way of Will in favour
of his brother is hit by statutory prohibition and no rights of
tenancy could be claimed on its basis – Sustainability of – Held:
Not sustainable – In the scheme of the Act of 1948 as also the Act
of 1961, when a person had been inducted as tenant, heritable
right comes into existence with certain embargo over transferability
of such tenancy – Such tenancy continues even after the demise
of tenant – If the deceased tenant was a member of joint family,
768
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 768
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
769
then the surviving members of the joint family; and if he was not
a member of joint family, his heirs would be entitled to claim
partition subject to the conditions specified – However, the
tenanted land cannot be sub-let nor any interest therein could be
assigned – On facts, original tenant had executed the Will in favour
of appellant’s father bequeathing his rights in the land and that
appellant’s father was in possession of the land relates to the stage
before acquisition of occupancy rights; and the legatee of the Will,
had been none other than the brother of the deceased tenant; and
the said legatee, being related to the deceased tenant by legitimate
kinship, had already been declared to be the successor of the
tenant in the civil suit in presence of all the relevant parties,
including the respondents, with categorical finding that the wife
of tenant had left and ceased to be his heir after having contracted
other marriage – Hence, the Will is not hit by the embargo, whether
that is contained in s. 27(1) of the Act of 1948 or in s. 21 of the
Act of 1961 – A fortiori, the application made by appellant’s father
for grant of occupancy rights is allowed – Orders passed by the
High Court as also the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and Land
Tribunal set aside – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 – ss. 27, 40.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court was not right in holding that
the bequeath of all the properties by the executants-original
tenant of the land in question by way of Will in favour of his
brother is hit by statutory prohibition and no rights of tenancy
could be claimed on its basis. Thus, the impugned orders cannot
be sustained. [Para 8] [784-F-G]
1.2 As regards the applicable statutory provisions, the Will
in question was executed on 13.02.1960 and the executant, G,
the original tenant of the land in question, expired on
19.06.1963. At the relevant point of time, the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 had not come into force and the tenancy in
question was governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948. With advent of the Act of 1961, various
enactments relating to the agricultural land and tenancy,
including the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948,
KANNA TIMMA KANAJI MADIWAL (D) THR. LRS. v.
RAMACHANDRA T

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