- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Veerabhadrappam & Ors. v. Virupaxappa Totappa Bilebal
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff and defendant were brothers. Following an earlier partition, the plaintiff sought partition and injunction concerning six properties, claiming a half share. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it. The defendant's legal representatives filed the second appeal. [1][2][3]
The plaintiff alleged that he continued living with the defendant and their mother after the partition, and that the defendant denied his rights after their mother's death in 1967. The defendant disputed joint possession and contended that the suit lands had been leased to him individually. [2][4]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the leasehold rights belonged jointly to the family or individually to one member. [5]
- Whether the suit lands constituted joint tenancy lands in which the plaintiff was entitled to seek partition. [3]
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Case
- The parties were full brothers, and the plaintiff continued to live with the defendant and their mother after the partition. [2]
- The defendant denied the plaintiff's rights after the mother's death, requiring partition of the properties. [2]
Defendant's Case
- The defendant denied that the plaintiff lived with him and disputed that the lands were jointly cultivated or jointly possessed. [4]
- The suit lands had allegedly been leased to the defendant individually, with only his name recorded as tenant. [4]
- The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction concerning the tenancy lands, and no question of partition arose. [4]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sri Rudrayya v. Basayya, R.S.A. No. 105/94, disposed of on 10-12-1997 | A tenancy granted to one family member may benefit the family, and the Civil Court may determine the nature of the right. | The Court followed this view in holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. [6] |
| Booda Poojary v. Thomu Poojarthy, ILR 1992 KAR 1359 | Occupancy rights become freehold rights, and family members may claim their share in the Civil Court by establishing their interest. | The Court relied on this Full Bench decision to support Civil Court jurisdiction over the family members' competing rights. [7][8] |
| R.F.A. 189/96, dated 9-8-1996 | After an occupancy certificate is issued, the issue is whether the right benefits only the named defendant or all legal heirs; that question may be decided by the Trial Court. | The Court relied on the Division Bench proposition that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted. [9][10] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that a tenancy granted to one member of a family may be for the benefit of the family. It treated the rights as joint tenancy rights and concluded that determining whether the acquisition benefited both family members was within the Civil Court's jurisdiction. [6]
The Court relied on the Full Bench ruling in Booda Poojary v. Thomu Poojarthy, which recognized that family members may assert their rights in the Civil Court after occupancy rights are granted. [7][8]
It also followed the Division Bench decision stating that, once an occupancy certificate is issued, the question is whether the benefit extends to all legal heirs, a matter that may be decided by the Trial Court. [9][10]
Applying these authorities, the Court found no merit in the second appeal. [11]
Holding and Implications
SECOND APPEAL DISMISSED. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were confirmed. [11]
The direct effect was that the plaintiff's claim to partition of the joint tenancy lands was upheld and the first appellate court's decree remained operative. The opinion discusses no broader implications, and no new precedent was set.
CASES REFERRED AT PARAS 1. R.S.A No. 105/94 dated 10.12.1997 - Sri Rudrayya v. Basayya (Foll) 6 2. ILR 1992 KAR 1359 - Booda Poojary v. Thomu Poojarthy, (do) 7
Sri K. Giridhar, Advocate for Appellants
Sri S.B Swethadri, Advocate for Respondents
JUDGMENT
T.N Vallinayagam, J.:—
The L.Rs of the defendant are the appellants. The suit for partition and injunction in respect of six items of the property, claiming half share thereof, was dismissed by the trial court, but came to be decreed by the appellate Court on appeal by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant is before this court questioning the decree of first appellate court.
2. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and defendant are full brothers; originally plaintiff had three properties. There was a partition among them in 1950 and they began to live separately. But plaintiff being youngest and without any experience as the mother was alive continued to live with the defendant and the mother of the defendant was managing the property. While so in 1967, when the mother died, the defendant began to deny the right of the plaintiff, hence the suit came to be filed for partition.
3. The defendant contended, while admitting the relationship and also the fact that there was a partition among brothers of the plaintiff and the defendant, denied that the plaintiff began to live with the defendant. It is incorrect to say that the lands of the plaintiff as well as those of the defendant given to the mother for her maintenance during the life time were all being cultivated jointly with the some agricultural establishment; that the defendant was in possession and the father reposed full confidence in him. Reiterating the earlier partition of 1951 and not 1950, the defendant contended further that the suit lands had been taken on lease on 6-8-1953 in his individual capacity and his name alone appears as tenant for the suit lands; the suit lands have never been taken jointly by the defendant and the plaintiff and the same have never been in joint possession; therefore the question of partition does not arise. The jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted to declare or to hand over possession in respect of the tenant land in possession of the defendant. Therefore, this court has no jurisidiction to try the suit.
4. On this pleading, the trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to half share of the tenancy rights as the plaintiff has failed to prove that he and defendant are the joint tenants. Consequently, the suit came to be dismissed. The Appellant Court, however, holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the case, found that the trial court on oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was living with the defendant along with the mother even after the partition till the death of the mother in the year 1967; Ex. P. 1 has been relied upon to show that the defendant has clearly deposed that “himself and plaintiff were living together” and the trial court has also relied upon the evidence of P.W 3 another brother of the plaintiff and the defendant who has also deposed in clear terms that the plaintiff, defendant and the mother were leaving altogether even after the partition; these finding goes to show that the plaintiff continued to live with the defendant though there was a partition between them and the third brother. Believing the witnesses of the plaintiff and the documents filed by the plaintiff, both at the time of trial and even after the remand, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit lands are joint tenancy lands between the plaintiff and the defendant and they are exclusively tenancy lands of the defendant and consequently they are entitled to partition of the same.
5. The question of law raised is regarding the Civil Court's jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the leasehold right is that of a joint family or individual right of that of one of the members of the joint family?
6. This Court has already taken the view that once the tenancy is granted even to one member of the family, it is for the benefit of the family. In this case, admittedly, it is the joint tenancy. The Tribunal has declared that it is a joint tenancy or in the eye of law it is a joint tenancy, even if it is given to one of the members. In my opinion, it is only an acquisition of the property by two members of the joint family, and certainly the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the same is the view expressed by me in Sri Rudrayya v. Basayya . R.S.A No. 105/94, disposed of on 10-12-1997..
7. A full bench of this court in Booda Poojary v. Thomu Poojarthy . ILR 1992 KAR 1359., has also held as follows:
“Once the occupancy rights are granted, the leasehold rights stand converted into free hold rights without damaging the rights of the occupant's family or any member thereof. It is always open to the member or members of the family to claim their share or right in Civil Court over the lands on which occupancy rights are granted by establishing their right or interest in the property.”
A Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in R.F.A 189/96, dated 9-8-1996, has ruled the following proposition:
“That question has already been decided by the Land Tribunal while it issued an occupancy certificate. When an occupancy certificate is already issued, no question of tenancy arises thereafter and the only question is as to whether the right granted by the Land Tribunal would enure to the benefit of the first defendant alone or to all the legal heirs. That certainly is a matter which can be decided by the Trial Court and its jurisdiction is not ousted especially when an order has already been passed by the Land Tribunal.”
8. Following the aforesaid decisions, I hold that there is no merit in the second appeal and the second appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court is confirmed.
Alert