Holding

The surrender of tenancy by Jinnappa Gowda on 5 March 1968 was valid, the tenancy was not heritable, and consequently Laxmi and her daughter Girija are not entitled to occupancy rights.

Summary

The original landlord Govinda Bhat leased agricultural land to Kariyappa Gowda, who died in 1960. After his death, Jinnappa Gowda, his son, entered into a tenancy agreement on 5 November 1961 and later surrendered most of the land by a deed before a Munsif on 5 March 1968, an act later deemed to be under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Jinnappa continued to cultivate the remaining land, but his step‑sister Laxmi claimed to be the tenant and obtained an injunction; the Land Tribunal gave her limited occupancy rights on humanitarian grounds, which were later expanded to her daughter Girija by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the surrender was valid, the tenancy was not heritable, and Laxmi and Girija never acquired tenant status, thus setting aside all lower‑court orders. The appeal by the landlord was allowed.

Issues considered

The validity and effect of the surrender deed executed by Jinnappa Gowda on 5 March 1968 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Whether the tenancy created by the rent note of 5 November 1961 was heritable and could pass to Laxmi or her daughter.
Whether Laxmi's possession obtained through an injunction confers occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Whether the Land Tribunal, Land Reforms Appellate Authority and High Court erred in conferring occupancy rights on Laxmi/Girija.
The jurisdiction of the land reform authorities to entertain the occupancy claim after the surrender.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961s. 1(3), s. 142, s. 25

Subjects

occupancy rightstenancy surrenderKarnataka Land Reforms Actheritable tenancyland tribunalagricultural landstep‑sister claimcivil injunction

Judgment

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1041
'-<I

V.G. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT A
v.
GIRIJA (D) BY LRS. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8334 of 2002)
APRIL 27, 2009
B
_. [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Occupancy rights
- Claim of - Lease of agricultural land in favour of father -
Death of father- Son becoming tenant on basis of agreement c
for tenancy with original landlord - Execution of rent note in
favour of landlord - Surrender of tenancy by tenant before
court - Claim of occupancy rights by step sister of tenant -
Grant of, by appellate authority as also High Court - Held:
Not c~rrect - Status of son as tenant cannot be disputed - D
"' · High Court and authorities below erred in holding step sister
and her daughter in independent possession of said land as
tenant - Surrender proceedings were valid and remained
intact till date - Sister could not be conferred tenancy rights
merely on basis of some evidence - More so, tenancy was E
not heritable - Thu~. step sister and her daughter could not

- ~
be given status of occupancy tenants.

Original landlord leased out certain agricultural lands
in favour of KG. KG cultivated the said land. After his
death, J became tenant on basis of the agreement F
between J and the landlord and was cultivating the land.
J surrendered major portion of the property by way of
surrender deed to the landlord before the Munsif. L-step
~
sister of J claimed occupancy rights in respect of the said
+ land. Land tribunal conferred occupancy rights as regard G
~

part of the land on humanitarian grounds but rejected the
, claim for the remaining land. However, Land Reforms
Appellate Authority set aside the order. After L's death,
her daughter G was conferred occupancy rights for both
1041 H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R.
,..~

A the lands. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present
appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The surrender of land between J-tenant
B and original landlord took place on 5.3.1968 before the
Munsif. J had executed a rent note in favour of the
landlord on 5.11.1961. The order passed certifying the
surrender of J was never challenged either by L or by G
---
or for that matter, anybody and that order has remained
c intact. After the execution of rent note, it was J who was
in cultivation of the land throughout. However, when L
asserted her right for the first time by way of a civil suit
she claimed to be the direct tenanf after original tenant.
This was not possible because it is nobody's case that
D KG had taken the tenancy on behalf of the whole family ...
and after him, the tenancy was inherited by L. If at all it
was a heritable tenancy, then it would have been inherited
by both L and J. Instead, L claimed to be the sole tenant
in respect of the whole property in the civil suit and very
strangely, she got the injunction, which injunction
..
E
dispute went right up to the High Court and which
injunction dispute came in the lap of the land tribunal on
account of the fact that by that time, the tribunal had
come into existence due to the passing of Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961. Unfortunately, land tribunal,
!(
-
F
Appellate Authority and High Court missed all these
important factors. In its original order, the land tribunal
rejected the claim of L in respect of the major chunk of
land of 80 cents and conferred the occupancy rights in

-
respect of 26 cents of L when L had no rights, ;-
G ~
whatsoever, and could not have been conferred with the
rights on so-called humanitarian grounds. That order
was clearly incorrect. However, it was correct insofar as
the remaining land of 80 cents is concerned. [Para 9]
[1050-A-H]
H
VG. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT v. GIRIJA (0) BY 1043
LRS. & ANR.

1.2. The land tribunal correctly came to the A
conclusion that L had come into possession only on the
strength of injunction granted by the Munsif Court. The
Land Reforms Appellate Authority went on to comment
that the land tribunal had not taken into consideration the
relationship between J and the appellant and the B
evidence adduced by the appellant to prove that they
·-4. were cultivating the disputed lands. Even if all the letters
are read in favour of L, still then, at the most, L's
possession would be that of on behalf of J. She cannot
be said to be independently in possession of the c
concerned land, muchless in her capacity as a tenant.
This fact was completely missed by the Land Reforms
Appellate .Authority. The Land Reforms Appellate
Authority again nowhere considered the effect of
surrender and the order dated 5.3.1968 remaining
0
unchallenged throughout. [Para 10) [1051-A-D]

1.3. It cannot be understood as to how the Land
Reforms Appellate Authority could have even gone into
the correctness of the order dated 5.3.1968. Nobody
challenged the same, including L. The Land Reforms E
Appellate Authority described J as not wordly wise and
was mentally unsound. The finding that J was a man of
- )> low intelligence and, therefore, he surrendered the land,
also appears to be a wholly incorrect finding based on
no evidence. It cannot be forgotten that the surrender F
was done before a judicial authority as per the provisions
of the Act and was not illegal. The surrender remained
intact till today. Land Reforms Appellate Authority also
gave a very strange finding that the land was tenanted

- to undivided famtly, therefore, all the family members had
to jointly surrender the land and it was not permissible
for one member of the family to surrender the land. It
completely ignored the fact that on 5.11.1961, i.e., after
G

KG's death, there was an independent rent note, creating
the tenancy in J alone. Appellate Authority further H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

)-"

A imagined that the rent note was executed by J for the
benefit of his family members and not in his individual
capacity. Therefore, the order of the Land Reforms
Appellate Authority was totally incorrect. [Para 12] (1052-
A-F]
B
1.4. The High Court also failed to see through all
these illegalities. It mentioned, the factum of the
surrender dated 5.3.1968 wrongly under section 4 of the
Madras Cultivation and Tenant Protection Act, 1955. In
fact, this surrender was not under section 4, but should
c have been under section 25 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 because by then, the Land Reforms
Act had come on the legal ~nvil. Unfortunately, the High
Court also erred in going on the factual aspects of the
matter to the effect that J used to go away for w_orking
D and L used to look after the cultivation. Even if that was
true, that could not ripen into any rights into L much less "'
the tenancy rights. High Court also commented on the
unchallenged order dated 5.3.1968, which undoubtedly,
had the effect of bringing the tenancy into end. The said
E order could not have been commented upon, particularly,
when it was passed by Munsif and it was not in challenge
in the High Court in any manner. High Court held that the
money orders sent to the landlord were on the
instructions of L and J. In fact, the evidence of SR was
F clear that J used to instruct him. If J was in a position to
---
instruct the lawyer, he could be said to be a man of low
intelligence or a man of having no mental faculties, as
was tried to be shown by L. High Court actually approved
of the wrong finding in appeal, examining the order of

-
,,...
G surrender without there being any jurisdiction of the --t
same. That is wholly incorrect. Even if the finding arrived
at by the High Court that L was cultivating the property
is justified, that is not sufficient to confer upon her right
of a tenant as her possession was not that of a tenant.
Some imaginary statements had been made to the effect
H
'
V.G. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT v. GIRIJA (D) BY 1045
LRS. & ANR.
~
'
that this fact must be within the knowledge of the A
appellant . High Court also erred in holding that KG had
' taken the property on lease and after his death, J was
cultivating the property on behalf of the family members.
High Court fell into total error in holding that the
surrender order passed by the Court without L being B
impleaded is a nullity in the eye of law. It has absolutely
no basis. High Court was not called upon to decide the
-~ correctness of the surrender order. [Para 13] [1052-G-H;
1053-A-H; 1054-A]

1.5. It is clear that all the orders of the authorities are
c
totally incorrect and would have to be set aside.
Th~refore, it is declared that L and thereafter, her
daughter G do not have any rights and could not have
been given the status of occupancy tenants. [Para 14]
[1054-B-C] D
....
" CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8334 of 2002.

From the Judgment & Order dated 3.4.2001 of the High E
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in LR.RP.No. 2428 of 1990
(LRA).

.., )t
P. Krishna Mcarthy and Rajesh Mahale for the Appellant.

V.N. Raghupathy, Amit Kr. Chawla, Sanjay R. Hegde for F
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. A judgment passed by the
_, Karnataka High Court in Land Reforms Review Petition, G
'
.... '+ dismissing the same, confirming the order passed by the Land
Reforms Appellate Authority, which in turn had confirmed the
order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, is in challenge in
the present Appeal. The said Revision was filed by the present
appellants as the legal representatives of the original landlord. H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A 2. One Govinda Bhat owned agricultural lands, which were >~
leased in favour of one Kariyappa Gowda in 50s. Kariyappa
Gowda cultivated the property as a tenant till his death. He had
two wives, first being Akki Hengsu and through her, a daughter
namely Laxmi Hengsu, and, second being Kali Hengsu and one
B son Jinnappa Gowda through her. Admittedly, Kariyappa
Gowda died in 1960. At that time, his daughter Laxmi was
already married and was living with her husband. After
Kariyappa Gowda died, the property was being cultivated by ~ -
Jinnappa Gowda, with whom there was an agreement dated
c 5.11.1961 for tenancy. The total land, which was being
cultivated was 2 acres 17 cents. In the year 1962, Jinnappa
Gowda surrendered major portion of this property by way of a
Surrender Deed to the landlord. Only the area of 1.6 acres was
left with Jinnappa Gowda. It has come on record that Jinnappa
Gowda represented to the landlord that he was not able to
D
cultivate the land for over 3 years and he expressed his desire
to surrender the property. Therefore, a petition was filed before / ~
..
the Munsif Court and after examining the parties, an order came
to be passed on 5.3.1968, permitting Jinnappa Gowda to
surrender the lands under Section 4 of Madras Cultivation and
E Tenant Protection Act, 1955. So far so good.

3. Laxmi, the step sister of Jinnappa Gowda, however, filed
a Civil Suit being O.S. 63 of 1968 and obtained an injunction
on 25.3.1968 against the petitioner (appellant herein), ~ ....
F restraining the appellant from interfering with her possession.
An appeal was filed against the order, granting injunction vide
appeal in M.A. 34 of 1968 on the file of Court of Civil Judge,
Mangalore, which came to be decided by the Learned Civil
Judge, holding that Laxmi could not be dispossessed. As
G against that, Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1670 and 1671 of
1968 were filed before the High Court. The High Court,
....
~

~
however, without going into the merits of the case, directed the
Trial Court to dispose of the main suit itself without reversing
the decision of the lower Court, which had passed the order
H
-
V.G. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT v. GIRIJA (D) BY 1047
(.
LRS. & ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

'~ on merits. After the order of remand, the matter remained A
pending before the Munsif, who on application, appointed
Laxmi as the Receiver. As against that order, the petitioner
(appellant herein) preferred an appeal before the Court of Civil
Judge, Mangalore, who remanded the matter on 9.1.1976 to
the Land Tribunal, as the Tribunal had then come into existence B
owing to the 1974 Act. While the said suit was pending in the
Court, Laxmi filed Form No. 7 application before the Land
-..I Tribunal,
. Bantwal in TNC No. 3216/74-75 against V.G. .
Shankaranarayana Bhat, who had succeeded the original
landlord Govinda Bhat, who had expired, for conferral of c
occupancy rights. This suit was also transferred to the Land
Tribunal, as the earlier application was pending for declaration
and also for grant of occupancy right in respect of the land in
question.

4. The Land Tribunal, after enquiry, by its order dated D
23.11.1984, rejected the claim of the first respondent herein,
however, on humanitarian grounds, conferred the occupancy
rights upon Laxmi in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 46/
2 measuring 26 cents. Her claim in respect of the remaining
land was, however, rejected, that being Survey No. 43/2 E
• measuring 80 cents. The appellant herein filed a Writ Petition
No. 10592 of 1985 before the High Court. Laxmi also filed a
Writ Petition being Writ petition No. 51b4 of 1985 against the
,~ ) order dated 23.11.1984. Both the petitions were clubbed and
the matter was remanded to the Land Reforms Appellate F
Authority. During the pendency before Land Reforms Appellate
Authority, Laxmi died and, therefore, present respondent Girija
was brought on record. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority,
by its order dated 14.12.1989, set aside the order passed by
the Land Tribunal in respect of the 80 cents in Survey No. 43/ G
... 2, as also the land bearing Survey No. 46/2 measuring 0.26
+ cents, which land was conferred upon Laxmi on humanitarian
.....,,:
grounds and conferred occupancy rights of both upon Girija. It
• is this order, which was challenged before the High Court. The

-· High Court, however, confirmed the order of the Land Reforms H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
"
A Appellate Authority and that is how, the parties are before us. ,1----

5. Shri Krishna Moorthy, Learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the landlord (appellant) pointed out that
the orders of the Land Tribunal, the Land Reforms Appellate
Authority, as well as, the High Court are patently erroneous in
B
law. The Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that admittedly,
Jinnappa Gowda was the original tenant on the basis of an
agreement dated 5.11.1961 with the original landlord Govinda
.\. -
Bhat after the death of Kariyappa Gowda. The Learned Senior
Counsel further pointed out that this status of Jinnappa Gowda
c was never in dispute. He, therefore, pointed out that the High
Court, as well as two authorities below, patently erred in holding
Laxmi and a,fter her, her daughter Girija to be the tenants. In
fact, the possession of Laxmi, if any, could never have been
viewed as that of the tenant. The Learned Senior Counsel
D pointed out that out of the original holding, the land excluding
1.6 acres was already surrendered and thereafter, even in ~

respect of that land, i.e., 1.6 acres, there were valid surrender
proceedings, which proceedings were never challenged by

E
Laxmi and, therefore, the Land Tribunal, as also the Land
Reforms Appellate Authority were in total error in going into the
correctness or otherwise of the said surrender and writing a
finding that the said surrender was brought about by fraud. The
Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that very strangely,
-
Laxmi never joined Jinnappa Gowda as party either before the ~ ....,
F Land Tribunal or even before the Civil Court, where she had
chosen to go for seeking injunction against the landlord nor had
she filed the said proceedings on behalf of Jinnappa Gowda.
The Land Tribunal, as well as, the Land Reforms Appellate
Authority also could not have proceeded to confer the tenancy
G rights upon Laxmi merely on the basis of some evidence that
she was taking care of the agricultural lands in the absence of ,...
Jinnappa Gowda and further, without hearing Jinnappa Gowda.
At any rate, the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, as well
"' ""
•
as, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority were suffering from
H jurisdictional error.
•
V.G. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT v. GIRIJA (D) BY 1049
· LRS. & ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

---~ 6. As against this, the Learned Counsel appearing on A
behalf of the respondents herein supported all the orders,
contending that it was laxmi, who was throughout in possession
and, therefore, she is bound to be conferred with the occupancy
rights.
B
7. On these rival pleadings, it is to be decided as to
whether Laxmi could have been conferred with the occupancy
rights.

8. The legal scenario has to be borne in mind before we
approach the question in any manner. The Karnataka Land C
Reforms Act, 1961 being Act 10 of 1962 came into force on
2.10.1965, i.e., the day, which was appointed by the State
Government under Section 1(3) of the said Act. This Act was
amended from time to time by Act Nos. 14 of 1965, 38 of
1966, 5of1967, 11 of 1968, 6 .of 1970, 4 of 1972, 1 of 1974, D
26 of 1974, 31 of 1974, 18 of 1976, 27 of 1976, 44 of 1976, '
67 of 1976, 12 of 1977, 23 of 1977, 1 of 1979, 2 of 1980, 3 of
1982, 1 of 1983, 35of1985, 19of1986, 18of1990, 1of1991,
31 of 1991, 9 of 1992, 31 of 1995, 8of1996, 23of1998 & 34
of 1998 and the amendments were brought in by these E
aforementioned Acts. Before this Act came on the anvil,
admittedly, parties were being governed by Madras Cultivation
and Tenant Protection Act, 1955. By Section 142 of the 1961
... )
Act, Madras Cultivation and Tenant Protection Act, 1955, as
well as, the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) F
Act, 1956 repealed along with all other Acts like Bombay
Tenancy Act, Hyderabad Tenancy Act, Mysore Tenancy Act etc.
Kariyaapa Gowda was, therefore, a tenant under the provisions
of Madras Cultivation and Tenant Protection Act, 1955. After
his death, Jinnappa Gowda also became a tenant as per the G
agreement dated 5.11.1961 in between Jinnappa and the
landlord Govinda Bhat. The surrender of tenancy, which took
place on 5.3.1968 in between Jinnappa and Govinda Bhat was
under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961,
"I since that Act had come on the anvil. The said surrender took
H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A place under Section 25 of that Act, as it existed in the year j.j

1968. This Section has undergone a sea change, but we are
not concerned with that change.

9. It is an admitted case that the said surrender took place
B on 5.3.1968 before the Munsif, Bantwal. It is further an admitted
case that Jinnappa had executed a rent note in favour of the
landlord on 5.11.1961. Now, the order passed, certifying the
surrender of Jinnappa has never been challenged either by
Laxmi or by Girlja or for that matter, anybody and that order has ~ -
remained intact. It is also an admitted case that after 5.11.1961,
c i.e., after the execution of rent note, it was Jinnappa, who was
in cultivation of the land throughout. However, when Laxmi
asserted her right for the first time by way of a Civil Suit l:)efore
Munsif, she claimed to be the direct tenant after Kariyappa
Gowda. This wes not possible because it is nobody's case that
D (1) Kariyappa Gowda had taken the tenancy on behalf of the
,..._
whole family and (2) after him, the tenancy was inherited by ~
,._
Laxmi. If at all it was a heritable tenancy, then it would have been
inherited by both Laxmi and Jinnappa Gowda. Instead, Laxmi
claimed to be the sole tenant in respect of the whole property ,_
E in the Civil Suit and very strangely, she got the injunction, which
injunction dispute went right up to the High Court and which
injunction dispute came in the lap of the Land Tribunal on
account of the fact that by that time, the Tribunal had come into
existence due to the passing of Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
F 1961. Unfortunately, the Land Tribunal, the Land Reforms
" '"
Appellate Authority and the High Court have missed all these ,.__
important factors. In its original order, the Land Tribunal has
gone to the extent of rejecting the claim of Laxmi in respect of
the major chunk of land of 80 cents and it also very strangely
G conferred the occupancy rights in respect of 26 cents of Laxmi,
when Laxmi had no rights, whatsoever, and could not have ,..
~
been conferred with the rights on so-called humanitarian
"
grounds. That order was clearly incorrect. However, it was
correct insofar as the remaining land of 80 cents is concerned.
H

T
V.G. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT v. GIRIJA (0) BY 1051
LRS. & ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
..,..,~
•
10. We have very carefully seen the order passed by the A
Land Reforms Appellate Authority, though the original order of
the Land Tribunal was never made available to us. In our
opinion, the Land Tribunal had correctly come to the conclusion
that Laxmi had come into possession only on the strength of
injunction granted by the Munsif Court. The Land Reforms B
Appellate Authority went on to comment that the Land Tribunal
had not taken into consideration the relationship between
-~ Jinnappa Gowda and the appellant and _the evidence adduced
by the appellant to prove that they were cultivating the disputed
lands. In our opinion, even if all the letters are read in favour of c
Laxmi, still then, at the most, Laxmi's possession would be that
of on behalf of Jinnappa Gowda. She cannot be said to be
independently in possession.of the concerned land, muchless
in her capacity as a tenant. This fact has been completely
missed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The Land D
... 'j
Reforms Appellate Authority again nowhere has considered the
effect of surrender and the order dated 5.3.1968 remaining
unchallenged throughout. That is another circumstance against
Laxmi and, therefore, against her daughter Girija.

11. Again, the further circumstance that Jinnappa Gowda's E '
status was that of the tenant on the basis of a rent note dated
5.11.1961 has been totally missed by the Land Reforms
Appellate Authority, which was in fact correctly appreciated by
)I
the Land Tribunal. Jinnappa Gowda's this status of tenant was
surrendered by him finally on order dated 5.3.1968 from the F
Land Tribunal and that order has remained intact till today.

12. Very strangely, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority
has gone into the correctness of the order dated 5.3.1968
passed by the Tribunal, accepting the surrender and registering G
·~
~
the surrender. We fail to see as to how the Land Reforms
Appellate Authority could even have gone into the correctness
of the order dated 5.3.1968. Nobody challenged the same,
including Laxmi. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority has also
drifted into imagination in describing Jinnappa Gowda as a
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A man, who was not wordly wise. The finding that Jinnappawas ,,_.-~

a man of low intelligence and, therefore, he surrendered the
land, also appears to be a wholly incorrect finding based on
no evidence. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority has gone
to the extent of saying, mentioning in para 22 of its order, that
B Jinnappa was mentally unsound as per the appellant and that
there was no doubt that Jinnappa was a puppet in the hands
of the opponents and he has assigned his signatures as
directed by the opponent and in this way he has executed
documents as required by the opponents. All this has no basis,
. -

c whatsoever. It cannot be forgotten that the surrender was done
before a judicial authority as per the provisions of the Act and
that surrender remained intact till today. In para 23, the Land
Reforms Appellate Authority has also given a very strange
finding that the land was tenanted to an undivided family and,
therefore, all the family members had to jointly surrender the land
D
and it was not permissible for one member of the family to #•
f'
surrender the land. In this, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority
has completely ignored the fact that on 5.11.1961, i.e., after
Kariyappa's death, there was an independent rent note, creating
the tenancy in Jinnappa Gowda alone. The Land Reforms
E Appellate Authority has then further imagined that the rent note
was executed by Jinnappa Gowda for the benefit of his family
members and not in his individual capacity. We fail to follow
as to wherefrom, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority has
~
brought all these facts. Again, we are constrained to hold that
F the finding given by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority that
the surrender was illegal, has no basis. Therefore, obviously,
the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was totally
incorrect.

G 13. Very unfortunately, the High Court also failed to see
through all these illegalities, though the High Court has ,- .
...
mentioned in its judgment, the factum of the surrender dated
5.3.1968 (wrongly under Section 4 of the Madras Cultivation
and Tenant Protection Act, 1955). In fact, this surrender was not
H under Section 4, but should have been under Section 25 of the
V.G. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT v. GIRIJA (D) BY 1053
LRS. & ANR. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
~-""
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961 because by then, the Land A
Reforms Act had come o,n the legal anvil. Unfortunately, the High
Court has also fallen in error in going on the factual aspects of
the matter to the effect that Jinnappa Gowda used to go away
for working and Laxmi used to look after the cultivation. Even
if that was true, that could not ripen into any rights into Laxmi, B
much less the tenancy rights. The High Court has also gone on
-~ to comment on the unchallenged order dated 5.3.1968, which
undoubtedly, had the effect of bringing the tenancy into end. At
any rate, that order could not have been commented upon,
particularly, when it was passed by Munsif and particularly, it c
was not in challenge in the High Court in any manner. The High
Court has also very strangely written a finding that the money
orders sent to the landlord were on the instructions of Laxmi
and Jinnappa Gowda. In fact, the evidence of Seetharam R_ai
. '1' was clear that Jinnappa Gowda used to instruct him. If Jinnappa D
Gowda was in a position to instruct the lawyer, he could be said
to be a man of low intelligence or a man of having no mental
faculties, as was tried to be shown by Laxmi. The High Court
in para 14 of its judgment, has actually approved of the wrong
finding in appeal, examining the order of surrender without there
E
being any jurisdiction of the same. That is wholly incorrect. In
our opinion, even if the finding arrived at by the High Court in
... )I
para 16 of its judgment that Laxmi was cultivating the property
is justified, that is not sufficient to confer upon her right of a
tenant as her possession was not that of a tenant. Some
imaginary statements had been made to the effect that this fact F
must be within the knowledge of the petitioner (appellant
herein). The High Court has also fallen into error in holding that
Kariyappa Gowda had taken the property on lease and after
his death, Jinnappa was cultivating the property on behalf of
"' ,... the family members. We do not find any support to this strange G.
finding in the record, at least Learned Counsel for the
respondents was not able to justify this finding in any m2nner.
Again, the High Court has fallen into total error in holding that
the surrender order passed by the Court without Laxmi being
H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.

A impleaded is a nullity in the eye of law. It has absolutely no
basis. The High Court was not called upon to decide the
correctness of the surrender order.

14. From all this, it is clear that all the orders of the
authorities are totally incorrect and would have to be set aside.
8
It is, therefore, declared that Laxmi and thereafter, her daughter
Girija do not have any rights and could not have been given the
status of occupancy tenants. The appeal succeeds. However,
in the circumstances, there would be no orders as to the costs.

C N.J. Appeal allowed.

" -