Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the appellate authority’s factual findings and that the lease deed was not genuine, so the denial of occupancy rights stands.

Summary

The dispute concerned a parcel of land mortgaged by Bore Gowda to his brother Thammaiah in 1960, redeemed in 1963, and allegedly leased to Thammaiah. Bore Gowda later sold the land to his father‑in‑law Karigowda, who in turn sold it to the appellant Ramanna in 1972. Thammaiah claimed occupancy rights as a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, relying on the lease deed and rent receipts. The Land Tribunal initially granted occupancy, but the Appellate Authority, after examining the lease deed’s authenticity and revenue records, held the lease was not genuine and rejected the claim. The High Court set aside the appellate authority’s order, but the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the factual findings of the appellate authority and allowed the appeal, upholding the appellate authority’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the lease deed relied upon by the original tenant is a genuine document.
Whether the appellate authority’s factual findings on possession and tenancy can be disturbed by the High Court under Section 121‑A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Whether the original tenant is a deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Whether the chain of possession from Bore Gowda to Karigowda to the appellant is established.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961s. 121-A, s. 12IA, s. 4

Subjects

mortgage redemptionlease deed authenticityoccupancy rightsland reformsappellate authorityfactual findingstenancyKarnataka

Judgment

~

A.M. RAMANNA '
A >--
v.
LAND TRIBUNAL, MANDY A TALUK AND ORS.

JULY 12, 2007

B (DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.]

.>/-

Land Laws:
"-
Mortgage of suit land-Redemption and possession taken back-
c Mortgagee granted occupancy rights on the ground that after redemption of
mortgage, land was given on lease to him-Challenged by purchaser of the
/and-Appellate authority doubting the veracity of lease deed, rejected the
claim of mortgagee-High Court set aside the order of appellate authority-
On appeal, held: High Court erred in interfering with factual findings recorded
D by appellate authority-In Pahari documents name of mortgagee was not
entered as tenant-Rather name of purchaser entered in the Patta book and >---
Pahari documents-Moreover, mortgagee was Patel of village and had full ....
knowledge of sale transaction and also had signed in Patta book for having
received land tax from the purchaser-Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-
s. 12 IA.
E
On 18.11.1960, 'B' mortgaged suit land in favour of his brother 'T' for
a period of IO years. Though the mortgage period was upto the year 1970,
'B' redeemed mortgage on 27.8.1963 itself. However, the case of original
tenant 'T' was that on 30.8.1963, 'B' had executed a lease deed in his favour

F
in respect of certain lands including the suit land. 'T' filed an application
claiming occupancy rights in respect of suit land, which was allowed by the ,, -f
.
Tribunal.

Appellant claiming to be the purchaser of land from 'K' in the year 1972
approached the appellate authority. Appellate authority doubting the veracity
of the lease deed rejected the claim of 'T'. The Revision Petition was then
G
filed before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that there was no
discussion about the genuineness of the lease deed. Finally, it was concluded
that K was not examined either before the Tribunal or before the Appellate ,__ -
Authority by appellant, to substantiate his case that it was 'K' who was the "'
owner of the land from 1963 to 1972 from whom appellant purchased the land
H 308

)
_{
A.M. RAMANNA v. LAND TRIBUNAL. MANDY A TALUK 309
in the year 1972. Accordingly the ord'er of the appellate authority was set A
_, aside. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. It is admitted position that the possession by 'B' was taken at
the time ofredemption, and the possession was given to 'K' and 'K' had handed B
over possession to the appellant. (Para 10) [312-G)

'i- 2. In his cross examination 'T' had admitted that after redeeming the
.) mortgage for about 2 to 3 years he had not done guthige of the land and gave
the same to this younger brother 'B'. [Para 13) (313-G)
c
3. The Appellate Authority referred to the statement in the cross-
examination of'T' and came to hold that he was not in possession of the land
on 30.8.1963; The Pahari documents of the land were examined and it was
noted that the possession and enjoyment of land by 'T' was not there from
30.9.1963 and the same was not established. In the Pahari documents of the
land his name was not entered as tenant. On 30.9.1963, '8' sold the disputed D
___..
land to his father-in-law. After such sale in the Kandayam Patta Book and
.. Pahari documents of the disputed land, name of'K' the purchaser was entered.
He had even paid the land tax to the State Government 'T' who was the village
Patel has himself signed for having received the land tax in the Kandayarn.
Contrary to what the High Court has observed, the Appellate Authority in E
detail has examined the question as to the genuineness of the lease deed. In
the statement recorded by the Land Tribunal, it has been clearly admitted that
the disputed land was being cultivated by the 'K' and his son in law 'B' jointly.
Therefore, the Appellate Authority inferred that the sale deed was in force.
After examining the materials on record, the Appellate Authority recorded a
categorical finding that the lease deed was not a genuine document and it was F
)'- ...
not a believable document. The Appellate Authority noted that 'T' was Patel
of the village and he had full knowledge of the transaction. High Court erred
-l
in holding that there was no discussion on the factual aspect as to the
genuineness of the document. No evidence was adduced to substantiate the
claim of possession. [Para 141 (314-A-E)
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 669 of200 I.

From the Final Judgment & Order dated 4.9.1998 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in L.R.R.P. No. 2535 of 1990.
H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A G.V. Chandrashekhar, Anjana Chandrashekhar and P.P. Singh for the
I
Appellant.
t
Guntur Prabhakar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order
passed by learned Single Judge of the Kamataka High Court allowing the
revision petition filed under Section 121-A of the Kamataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). The non-official respondent No.2 C.L. Thammaiah
(since dead and substituted by his legal heirs) had filed the revision before
C the High Court questioning correctness of the order dated 28.2.1990 passed
by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mandya, reversing the order passed
by the Land Tribunal, Mandya on 21.1.1988. Stand before the High Court w~s
that the claim for grant of occupancy, though initially accepted by the Land
Tribunal was erroneously rejected by the Appellate Authority "" on re-
D appreciation of the evidence.

2. Background facts as noticed by the High Court in a nutshell are as
follows:

Thammaiah had two brothers, viz. Linge Gowda and Bore Gowda. Bore
E Gowda is no more and his wife and daughter, Kempamma and Sunandamma
are respondents 3 and 4 respectively in this appeal. Admittedly, prior to 1960
there was a partition amongst the 3 brothers, viz. Thammaiah, Linge Gowda
and Bore Gowda. The land Survey No.86/1 of Chikkaballi, Mandya Taluk,
along with other lands fell to the share of Bore Gowda. It is not disputed that
on 18.11.1960 Bore Gowda mortgaged the land in question in favour of
F Thammaiah for a period of I 0 years. Though the mortgage period was upto
1970, on 27.8.1963 the said Bore Gowda redeemed the mortgage. It is the case
of the original tenant Tham01aiah that on 30.8.1963 Bore Gowda executed a
lease deed in his favour in respect of 14 items of land including the land in
question and since then the original tenant and after his death his legal heirs
G are in possession and enjoyment of the land as the tenants. Appellant-
Ramanna, claimed to be the purchaser of the land from Karigowda in the year
1972. According to him, on 30.9.1963 the land in question was sold by Bore
Gowda in favour of his father-in-law, Karigowda, and after about 9 years
Karigowda sold the land to appellant and handed over possession also. It is
" also undisputed that, after the sale transaction in favour of appellant, as the
H original tenant Thammaiah, resisted appellant from cultivating the land in
A.M.RAMANNAv. LANDTRIBUNAL,MANDYA TALUK [PASAYAT,J.] 311

~ question on the ground that he is the tenant. Appellant·Ramanna filed a suit A
in 0.S. No.26 of 1972 and during the pendency of the suit, as the provisions
of the Act came to be amended and Civil Courts were barred from deciding
the question of tenancy, the said suit was not finalised. As stated earlier, after
coming into force the Act as amended by Karnataka Act No.I of 1974, the
original tenant, Thammaiah, filed application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy
rights in respect of all the 14 items of lands including the l~d in q~estion. B
Before the Land Tribunal statements of the parties were recorded and relying

~
" upon the agreement deed and the rent· receipts the Tribunal proceeded to
grant occupancy rights in favour of the origirial tenant Thammaiah bY the
order dated 2.8.1975. The said order was challenged by appellant before the
High Court by way of a writ petition and the High Court remanded the matter c
to the Land Tribunal fer fresh disposal in accordance with Jaw. After the
remand, once again the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence
and_, after recording of such fres~ evidence, the Tribunal again gave occupancy.
rights to the said Thammaiah. Aggrieved by the same, appellant approached
the Appellate Authority. Even before the Appellate Authority opportunity to
lead additional evidence was given to the parties and, after recording such D
• evidence, the Appellate AuthoritY doubting the vefacity of the lease deed
• rejected the claim of the revision petitioners. Hence revision petition was filed
before the High Court.

3. Stand before the High Court was that the Appellate Authority should
E
have held that Thammaiah was a deemed tenant in terms of Section 4. It was
also submitted merely because the alleged lease deed was not a registered
document as required under law, the same cannot be treated to be a concocted
document. On the basis of the said agreement 14 lands belonging to
Boregowda were leased out to the tenant Thammaiah and except that land in
.,. .. dispute the remaining 13 lands which were given to the wife and daughter F
under a deed of settlement had been granted to the original tenant only on
the basis of the said agreement.

4. Stand of the respondents before the High Court was that appellate
authority dealt with each of the issue elaborately and in detail and the court
exercising its revisionaljurisdiction under Section 121·A of the Act should G
not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority.
It was pointed out that Kaiigowda the predecessor in title was in possession
.A ...
of the land in question was its owner since 13.9.1960 as was held by the
appellate authority. Therefore no lease could have been created by Boregowda
"nd after 1972 as there was a sale by Karigowda and as there was no H
~-

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

I
A subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and revision
>-
petitioner or between Karigowda and the revision petitioner since 1963. The
Revision petitioner was not entitled for grant of occupancy right.

5. The High Court was of the view that there was no discussion about
.
the genuineness of the lease deed. Finally, it was concluded that Karigowda
B was not examined either before the Tribunal or before the Appellate Authority
by Ramanna, to substantiate his case that it was Karigowda who was the
owner of the land from 1963 to 1972 from whom Ramanna purchased the land 'r ,..
in the year 1972. Accordingly the order of the appellate authority was set
aside.
c 6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court's order is not supportable on facts and in law. The High
Court has erroneously observed that there was no discussion about the
1-
~
genuineness of the lease deed. The admitted fact is that possession was
taken at the time of redemption. The possession had given to Karigowda and
D Karigowda had given it to the appellant. Basis of the claim was the lease-deed
and the rent receipts. In the revenue records name of Thimmayya was not ~"

.. th er.:. "1

7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the
order of the High Court. j
E I
8. Few important dates need to be noted. In the year 1960 there was a
partition and the ownership of disputed property Survey No.86/l along with
r
some other plots came to Boregowda. On l 8. l l. l 960 Boregowda mortgaged "'
the property with his own brother Thammaiah for a period of ten years.

F 9. The said property was redeemed on 27.8.1963. On 30.9.1963 Boregowda ,..-
"'" r
sold the property to his father-in-law Karigowda.
,
·)
10. As noted above the admitted position is that possession was taken
at the time of redemption, and the possession was given to Karigowda, and
Karigowda had handed over possession to the appellant.
rt
~
G
l l. On l.3. 1974 the Act was enacted. It was specifically provided that
the lands vest in the Government and tenants were given right to claim
occupancy rights. Thammiah filed the petition before the land Tribunal and J, ,...._:
claimed to be the tenant under Karigowda. [nterestingly Boregowda was not
seen after the sale. The claim of tenancy was initially accepted. But the High .i.:t
H ~
1•
i}
A.M.RAMANNAv. LANDTRIBUNAL,MANDYA TALUK [PASAYAT,J.] 313

Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. A .,
The Land Tribunal again granted claim of occupancy tenant.

12. Before the Appellate authority following points were fonnulated for
detennination:

(a) Whether the disputed land is fit for agriculture? B
(b) Whether the disputed land was tenanted as on 1.3.1974 or
immediately prior thereto?

(c) As on 1.3.1974 or immediately prior to that, whether the fir~t
respondent was a tenant cultivating the disputed land lawfully under C
Boregowda?

(d) Whether the order of the Land Tribunal is valid?

(e) What is the proper and suitable order that can be passed in this
appeal?
D
13. As noted above basis of the claim was the lease- deed and the rent
receipts. The Appellate Authority noted that there was no dispute that
Thammiah was in possession of the disputed land. Appellant had purchased
the land under sale- deed on 21.7.1972. In order to prove that he was lawfully
cultivating the land relied Thammiah upon the Gutha Agreement dated 30.8.1963 ·
and the Gutha receipts dated 2.3.1964, 28.2.1966, 18.1.1965, 6.3.1970, 2.3.1969 E
and 16.2.1968. The appellate authority noted that Thamaiah attempted to
secure tenancy rights in the land that has gone to the share of his younger
brother. It was, therefore, known to him that on 13.9.1963 Boregowda had sold
the disputed land under a sale deed to his father in law Karigowda. Karigowda
in his statement before the Land Tribunal made some significant statements. F
The Appellate Authority noted that after partition in the family Boregowda
had mortgaged with possession of the land that came to his share for a period
of l 0 years by receiving a loan from Thammaiah. Before completion of the ten
years period Boregowda repaid the mortgaged amount on 27.8.1963 and
obtained back the possession. Boregowda discharged the mortgaged loan of
Thammaiah on 27.8.1963. In his cross examination Thammaiah had admitted G
that after redeeming the mortgage for about 2 to 3 years he had not done
guthige of the land and gave the same to his younger brother for a period
of three years on concession. After he left the village continuing the guthige
of the land again he himself was doing it.
H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.
.
.A 14. The Appellate Authority referred to the statement in the cross '>:-
examination and came to hold that he was not in possession of the land on
30.8.1963. The Pahari documents of the land were examined and it was noted
that the possession and enjoyment of land by Thammaiah was not there from
30.9.1963 and the same was not established. In the Pahari documents of the
land his name was not entered as tenant. On 30.9.1963 Boregowda sold the
B disputed land to his father in law. After such sale in the Kandayam Patt!l Book
and Pahari documents of the disputed land name of the Karigowda the
'V
purchaser was entered. He had even paid the land tax to the State Government. I

Thammaiah who was the village Patel has himself written remarks in the Putta
Book by receiving the land tax in the Kandayam Patta Book. He had signed
c for having received the land tax in the Kandayam. Contrary to what the High
Court has observed, the Appellate Authority in detail has examined the
question as to the genuineness of the lease deed. In the statement recorded
by the Land Tribunal has been clearly admitted that the disputed land was
being cultivated by the Koregowda and his son in law Boregowda jointly.
Therefore, the Appellate Authority inferred that the sale deed was in force.
D After examining the materials on record, the Appellate Authority recorded a )-
categorical finding that the lease deed was not a genuine document and it was -<(

not a believable document. The Appellate Authority noted that Thammaiah
was Patel of the village and he had full knowledge of the transaction. High
Court erred in holding that there was no discussion on the factual aspect as
E to the genuineness of the document. No evidence was adduced to substantiate
the claim of possession. It was also not shown as to when possession was
taken from Korigowda.
I
\

15. Above being the position the High Court should not have interfered
with the factual findings recorded by the appellate authority while exercising
F jurisdiction under Section 121-A of the Act. The order of the High Court is -t .x
not sustainable and is set aside.

16. The appeal succeeds but in the circumstances without any order as
to costs.

D.G. Appeal allowed.