LexS. VENKATAPPA versus NARAYANAPPA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S. VENKATAPPA
A
,.1
v.
NARAYANAPPA AND ORS.
APRIL 25, 2001
(SYED SHAH ;MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ.]
B
)
Tenancy and !and Laws :
-f
"
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-Sections 44, 45, 2(11), 2 (12)-
Occupancy Rights-Claim for-Tribunal granting on the basis of revenue c
records, rent receipts and oral evidence-Confirmed by appellate authority-
Set aside by High Court-On the basis of sale agreement mentioning that
vacant possession given to purchaser and the agreement attested by the
grandson of the original owner-On appeal, held the High Court should not
have inte1fered with the·. concurrent findings.
D
Constitution of India, 't950-Article 226-Writ Jurisdiction-Concurrent
......
findings of facts-presumption as to correctness of Revenue record raised-
-.,, -
High Court on basis of averments in the sale agreement disbelieved the
revenue records-Held, not justified-Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114.
Section 2 (12)-Family--Grandson is not a member of the family within E
the meaning of terms in section 2(12)-Hence he could be a tenant.
The land in question was sold to 'X' who later sold it to respondents
\
1 and 2. Appellant signed the two sale deeds as attestor. Thereafter, appellant
....
claimed occupancy rights to the land in question under sections 44 and 45
~
of the Karnataka Land Reforms {\ct, 1961. He produced oral and documentary F
evidence including revenue records showing his presence on land as tenant
till the year 1975. Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the appellant.
Appellate authority upheld the order. But High Court set aside the findings
on the ground that the sale agreement by owner of the land mentioned that
vacant possession had been given to the purchaser and the appellant who G
attested the agreement was the grandson of the original owner and therefore
he could not be a tenant. Hence this appeal.
4·
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The appellant produced oral and documentary evidence H
195
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001) 3 S.C.R.
·A including revenue records showing his presence on the land in question as
tenan~ till the year, 1975. There was also concurrent finding by the authorities
_,}..,
that he was tenant on the appointed day. Thus, the appellant has the right to
be registered as occupant in respect of the land transferred to the State
Government under Section 44 and 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
B
1961. [201-B)
2.1. Sale agreements between private parties may contain any averments.
Those averments have no presumptive value. The facts stated have to be
proved. [201-F)
r
c
2.2. In the instant case High Court upset the concurrent findings of
fact, only on the basis that the sale agreements by owner of the land mentioned
that vacant possession had been given to the purchasers and that the appellant
had attested both the sale agreements. The court also relied on the statement,
without further proof, in both the sale agreements that appellant was the
grandson of original owner and therefore he could not be tenant It disbelieved
D the revenue records even though they raised a presumption that what was
stated was correct. [201-D-F)
3. The appellant was not a member of the family of the owner of the
>-
land within the meaning of the term in section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961. Thus, it cannot be presumed that appellant could not be
"
E a tenant as he was the grandson of the owner of the land. (202-A)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2953 of
1997.
' From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.96 of the Karnataka High Court
J_
F in LR.RP. No. 2035 of 1990.
Shantha Kumar, V. Mahale and K.K. Gupta for the Appellant.
Ms. Kiran Suri and Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court .was delivered by
S. N. V ARIA VA, J. This Appeal is against an Order dated 7th August,
•
1996. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
-s..-
Prior to 1971 one Smt. Muniyamma was the owner of the concerned
H land. She sold the said land to one Shri G. M. Munivenkate Gowda in 1971.
S. VENKATAPPA v. NARAYANAPPA [S.N. VARIAVA, J.]
197
The Appellant signed the Sale Deed as an Attestor .
A
..J.
On 1st March, 197 4 the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 was ·
~
amended. Original Sections 44 and 45 were substituted. Section 44 and the
relevant portions of the substituted Section 45 read as follows:
"44. Vesting of land in the State Government.- (1) All lands held by BExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.