Holding

The appellant is entitled to occupancy rights; the High Court erred in disbelieving the revenue records and in treating the sale agreement averments as conclusive, and the appellant is not a member of the family within the meaning of Section 2(12).

Summary

The appellant claimed occupancy rights over a parcel of land under Sections 44 and 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, relying on revenue records, rent receipts and oral testimony that he had been a tenant until 1975. The Land Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Authority accepted this evidence and granted the occupancy rights. The Karnataka High Court set aside those findings, holding that private sale agreements stating vacant possession and identifying the appellant as the grandson of the original owner disproved his tenancy. The Supreme Court held that such averments in a sale deed have no presumptive value and that the revenue records and oral evidence were reliable, also clarifying that a grandson does not fall within the definition of "family" under Section 2(12) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the lower tribunals' orders were restored, granting the appellant occupancy rights.

Issues considered

Whether statements in private sale agreements can be treated as conclusive evidence to negate revenue records regarding tenancy.
Whether a grandson of the landowner is deemed a member of the "family" under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, thereby disqualifying him from tenancy.
Whether the High Court may overturn concurrent findings of fact of the Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority on the basis of the sale agreements.
Interpretation of Sections 44, 45, 2(11) and 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in relation to occupancy rights.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 226
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 114
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961s. 2(11), s. 2(12), s. 2(34), s. 4, s. 44, s. 45

Subjects

tenancyoccupancy rightsKarnataka Land Reforms Actrevenue recordssale deedfamily definitionevidencepresumptionappellate jurisdictionwrit jurisdiction

Judgment

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 ofIndia, 't950-Article 226-Writ Jurisdiction-Concurrent
...... findings offacts-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
195 H
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,
1961. [201-B)
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
2.2. In the instant case High Court upset the concurrent findings of
c 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 ARIAVA, 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 B
or in the possession of tenants (including tenants against whom a
decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or
issued) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the
_, Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted
under Section 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand
" c
transferred to and vest in the State Government.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate
issued by any court or authority directing or specifying the lands
which may be resumed or in any contract, grant or other instrument
or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from
the date of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in the D
Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely:-
_,.(
- (a) all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands
/.
and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be
vested absolutely. in .the State Government free from all
encumbrances; E·
(b) [x x x xx] amounts in respect of such lands which become due
on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State
Government and not to the land owner, landlord, or any other
~
""" person and any payment made in contravention of this clause
shall not be valid; F
(c) all arrears of land revenue, cesses, water rate or other dues

..,. remaining lawfully due on the date of vesting in respect of such
lands shall after such date continue to be recoverable from the
land-owner, landlord or other person by whom they were payable
and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be G,
........ realised by the deduction of the amount of such arrears from the
amount payable to any person under this Chapter;
4 (d) no such lands shall be liable to attachment in execution of any
decree or other process of any court and any attachment existing
on the date of vesting and any order for attachment passed H
.J
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A before such date in respect of such lands shall cease to be in
force;

(e) the State Government may, after removing any obstruction which
may be offered, forthwith take possession of such lands:

B Provided that the State Government shall not dispossess any
person of any land in respect of which it considers, after such
enquiry as may be prescribed, that he is prima facie entitled to
be registered as an occupant under this Chapter.

(f) the land~owner, landlord and every person interested in the land
c whose rights have vested in the State Government under clause
(a), shall be entitled only to receive the amount from the State
Government as provided in this Chapter;

(g) permanent tenants, protected tenants and other tenants holding
such lands shall~ as against the State Government, be entitled
D only to such rigtits or privileges and, shall be subject to such
conditions as are provided by or under this. Act; and any other
.rights and privileges which may have accrued to them in such
lands before the date of vesting against the landlord or other
person shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable
E against the State Government.

45. Tenants to be registered as occupants of land on certain
conditions. - (I) Subject to the provisions of the succeeding sections
of this Chapter, every person who was a permanent tenant,. protected
tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has laWfully sub-let, such
F sub-tenant shall with effect on and from the date of vesting be
entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of
which he was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or
sub-tenant before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating
personally.

G (2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx"

On 7th January, 1976 Sri Munivenkate Gowda sold the land to
Respondents 1 and 2. This Sale Deed is also signed by the Appellant as a~
H Attestor.

'l
S. VENKATAPPA v. NARAYANAPPA [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 199
On 29th August, 1976 the Appellant made an Application in Form No . A
. 7 claiming occupancy rights under the provisions of amended Sections 44 and
,,, .J.
45. The Respondents filed their objections. On 10th December, 1981 the Land
Tribunal rejected the application of the Appellant. The Appellant then filed
a Writ Petition in the High Court. By an Order dated 11th March, 1983 the
High Court set aside ·the Order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter
back for fresh enquiry. B
On remand the Land Tribunal took additional oral and documentary
evidence and, by an Order dated 27th March, 1987, held that the Appellant
-{
was the tenant of the land on the appointed day i.e. 1st March, 1974 and prior
... to that. The Land Tribunal thus granted occupancy rights to the Appellant.
c
Respondents 1 and 2 filed an Appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate
Authority, Kolar. The Appellate Authority also took further evidence and
documents on record and held that the Appe1Iant was a tenant of the land
on the appointed day, i.e. lst March, 1974 and prior to that and confirmed the
Order granted occupancy rights to the Appellant. The Appellate Authority
D
thus dismissed the Appeal on 4th April, 1990.

Respondents 1 and 2 then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which
...,. ·"'- has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned Order dated 7th
August, 1996.

Before the question involved is taken up for consideration certain other
E
provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act need to be noted. Section
2(34) defines a tenant as follows:

"2(34). "Tenant'' means an agriculturist [who cultivates personally the
.....
,,I land he holds on lease] from a landlord and includes-
F
(i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;
(ti) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the
Karnataka Tenants (femporary Protection from Eviction) Act,
1961;

(ii-a) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease ·under a
G
:.r lease created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before
the date of commencement of the Amendment Act;
-~
(fu) a person who is a permanent tenant; and
'(iv) a person who is a protected tenant." H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) 3 S.C.R.

A Section 4 provides that a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to
another person shall be deemed to be a deemed tenant, provided (a) the land
is not cultivated personally by the owner (b) if such person was not a member
of the owner's family, or (c) a servant or a hired labourer or wages.

Sections 2(11) and 2(12) are also relevant. They read as follows:
B
"2(11) "To cultivate personally" means to cultivate land on one's o\vn
account-

(i) by one's own labour; or .
r
c
(ii) by the labour of.any member of one's family or; .
(tii) by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind,
but not in crop share, under the personal supervision of oneself
or by member of one's family;

2(12) "Family" means,
D (a) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, such
individual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and
unmarried daughters, if any;
>-.-.
(b) in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual
and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters;
E
(c) in the ca<;e of an individual who is a divorced person and who
has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons and
unmarried daughters, whether in his custody or not; and
(d) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their
minor sons and unmarried daughters;" ,1...
......
F
In support of his claim Appellant had relied upon R.T.C. record of rights
and tenancy and Pahani for the concerned area. This showed that from i. 965
to 1970 the Appellant was cultivating the land as "Wara" i.e. a tenant. This
record also showed Muniyamnia as self cultiv~tor for the years 1970-71. It
could not be disputed that no enquiry, as contemplated under the Act, had
G
taken place before such a change was made in the records. The record again
shows in 1973-74 and 1974-75 the name of the Appellant but as a "Swantha", ....
i.e. a cultivator. Apart from these the Appellant gave oral evidence of his own
tenancy firstly under one Sri Narayanappa, who was the owner before ~~
Muniyamma, then under Muniyamma and thereafter under Munivenkate Gowda
H Munivenkate Gowda also gave evidence. He confirmed that the Appellant
S. VENKATAPPA v. NARAYANAPPA [S.N. VARIAVA, J.J 201
was a tenant under him and had been paying him rent by giving a share in A
the crop. The Appellant and Munivenkate Gowda proved certain rent receipts
for the period 1972 to 1975. Munivenkate Gowda accepted the fact that he had
received the rent and that he had issued those rent receipts. Thus the
Revenue Records show~d that the Appellant as a tenant from 1965 to 1970.
Thereafter, the Revenue Records showed during the years 1972 to 1974 the
name of the Appellant as a self cultivator. Admitted that entry would be B
wrong because during this period Munivenkate Gowda was the owner of the
land. The entries show the presence of the Appellant on the land as a tenant
upto 1970. The evidence of Munivenkate Gowda establishes that the Appellant
was a tenant till 1975.
c
I
On the above evidence, oral and documentary both the Land Tribunal
as well as the Appellate Authority had, on the material before them, held that
the Appellant was a tenant of the land on the appointed day i.e. 1st March,
1974.

The High Court, however, upset the concurrent findings of fact, in its D
revisionaljurisdiction, only on the basis that the Sale Agreements of 1971 i.e.
from Muniyamma to Munivenkate Gowda and in the Sale Agreement of 1976
- • i.e. from Munivenkate Gowda to R~spondents I and 2, it was mentioned that
vacant possession had been given to the purchasers and that the Appellant
had attested both the Agreements. The High Court also relied, without further g
proof, on the statement in both the Sale Agreements that Appellant was the
grandson of Muniyamma. Only on the basis of the avemients in the Sale
Deeds the High Court disbelieved the Revenue Records, even though they
raised a presumption that what was stated thereon was correct. The High
Court disbelieved the oral testimony and the Revenue Records only on basis
of statements in the sale Agreements. In our view the reasoning of the High F
Court cannot be· sustained at all. Sale Agreements between private parties
may contain any avennents. Those avennents have no presumptive· value.
The facts stated therein have to be proved. Respondents I and 2 had tendered
no further or other evidence of the relevant period. They tendered no evidence
which rebutted the presumption which arose from the Revenue Records. The G
testimony of the Appellant and Munivenkate Gowda was believed by the
Trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses.
Their testimony was supported by Revenue Records and rent receipts. The
first Appellate Court had also accepted that evidence. Without any justification,
the High Court chose to disbelieve that evidence. From the statements in the
two Agreements the High Court presumed that Appellant could not be a H
•
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A tenant as he was grandson of Muniyamma. This was entirely erroneous. Even
if Appellant was a grandson, he could still be a tenant as he is not a member ·
of the family ofMuniyamma within the meaning of the term in Section 2(12).
Also cultivation by Appellant would not amount to Muniyamma having
cultivated personally within the definition under Section 2(11). The two
B Agreements do not mention that there is no tenant on the land.

In our view, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained and is
accordingly set aside. The Orders of the Land Tribunal and the first Appellate
Court are restored. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be
no Order as to costs.
c N.J. Appeal disposed of.

.,