In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

R.S.A.No.3/2012 c/w R.S.A.No.80/2012, R.S.A.No.2465/2011 IN R.S.A.3/2012

BETWEEN

1. SMT NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY

2. SMT JAYANTHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O JAYARAMA SHETTY BOTH R/AT SHIVA SHAKTI NIVAS, RAMDAS NAGAR POS T,KASARAGOD TALUK &DIST KERALA STATE

3. MISS VIJAYA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY

4. SRI SHIVANANDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY

5. SMT NALINI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS W/O PRAKASH SHETTY

3 TO 5 R/AT SAVITHRI COMPOUND, PINTO LANE, NEAR SATHYANARAYANA BHAJANA MANDIRA BOLAR, MANGALORE

6. SMT KALYANI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O SANJEEVA SHETTY R/AT KALYANI SHEDTHI COMPOUND BOKKAPATNA BOLOOR, MANGALORE-6

7. SMT SHOBHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O LATE KESHAVA SHETTY C/O SMT NAGAMMA KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND NEAR POLRAI KATTE,P O BEJAI MANGALORE-4

8. MASTER DEEPAK SHETTY AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS S/O LATE KESHAVA SHETTY C/O SMT NAGAMMA,KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND NEAR POLRAI KATTE,P O BEJAI MANGALORE-4,SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHE AND NEXT FRIEND NAMELY APPELLANT NO 7

9. YASHAVANTHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE SHANKARA SHETTY R/AT KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND BEJAI,ANEGUDI MANGALORE

10. SMT SUMATHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O NAGARAJA SHETTY R/AT KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND POLARAI KATTE,P ON BEJAI MANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS

(By Sri. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADV.)

AND

1. SMT SHAMBAVATHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O VISHWANATHA RAI R/AT ENOLI,PAVOOR POST &VILLAGE MANGALORE

2. SMT SOMAKKE SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS W/O SHANTHA SHETTY R/AT IV BLOCK ,SITE NO 180,POST KATIPALL A,MANGALORE

3. SMT SEETHA SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O AITHAPPA SHETTY R/AT ALIYAR HOUSE,AMBALAMOGARU VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK

4. SMT APPI S PERGADE AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE R/AT KOPPARA THOTA HOUSE PUMPWELL, KANKANADY B VILLAGE KANKANADY, MANGALORE-02

5. MR TARANATH PERGADE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE R/AT KOPPARA THOTA HOUSE PUMPWELL, KANKANADY B VILLAGE KANKANADY, MANGALORE-02

6. KRISHNA @ SATHISH PERGADE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE

7. MR PADMA PERGADE AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE

4 TO 7 R/AT KOPPARA THOTA HOUSE PUMPWELL, KANKANADY B VILLAGE KANKANADY, MANGALORE-02

8. SRI VASANTHA ALVA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHI R/AT THARIGUDDE,NEERMARGA MANGALORE

9. SMT GULABI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

W/O BHOJA SHEDTHI R/AT NEAR KRISHNAPUR MUTT,SURATHKAL MANGALORE

10. SHREE SEETHARAMA ALVA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHI R/AT YEKKUR MANGALORE-10

11. SRI RAVINDRA ALVA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHI R/AT MAJAPE KESANAMOGARU PODDU POST,BANTWAL TALUK,D.K

12. SRI NARASIMHA ALVA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHI R/AT BELMA BARIKE HOUSE BELMA VILLAGE DERALAKATTE POST MANGALORE ,D.K.

13. SMT SAMPAVATHI ALVA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O SANKAPPA SHETTY R/AT PLOT NO54,WADUJKAR ESTATE BEGWAN ROAD,BARAMATHI -412102 POONA

14. SRI HEMANTHA ALVA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHI R/AT HOTEL VINAYAKA MARGAW BUS STAND,BARAMATHI ,POONA

15. SMT SUNANDA SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O JAYA SHETTY R/AT GURUPRASAD,NEAR YUVAKA MANDALA KRISHNAPURA, SURATHKAL MANGALORE TALUK

16. MR MOHAMMED KUNHI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS KAPILA OIL,PUMPWELL

KANKANADY POST MANGALORE-02

17. MR U ABDULLA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PUMPWELL KANKANADY POST MANGALORE-02

18. SMT LEELA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O NBUJANGA SHETTY R/AT ENOLI,PAVOOR POST MANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

IN R.S.A.80/2012:

BETWEEN

1. SRI VASANTHA ALVA AGED ABUOT 69 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHI R/AT THARIGUDDE NEERMARGA MANGALORE

2. SMT GULABI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O BHOJA SHETTY RESIDING NEAR KRISHNAPUR MUTT, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE TALUK

3. SRI RAVINDRA ALVA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHY R/AT MAJAPE KESANAMOGARU PUDU POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D K

4. SRI NARASIMHA ALVA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHY R/AT BELMA BARIKE HOUSE BELMA VILLAGE, DERALAKATTE POST MANGALORE TALUK & DIST

5. SMT SUNAND SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O JAYA SHETTY R/AT GURUPARSAD, NEAR YUVAKA MANDALA KRISHNAPURA, SURATHKAL MANGALORE TALUK & DIST. ... APPELLANTS

(By Sri. K ANANDARAMA, ADV.)

AND

1. SMT APPI S.PERGADE AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE

2. MR.TARANATH PERGADE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE

3. KRISHNA @ SATHISH PERGADE AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE

4. MR PADMA PERGADE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE

1 TO 4 R/AT KOPPARA THOTA HOUSE, PUMPWELL KANKANADI B VILLAGE, KANKANADY, MANGALORE- 575002

5. SMT NAGAMMA SHEDTHI ( DEAD) AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS W/O KRISHNA SHETTY

6. SMT KALYANI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O SANJEEVA SHETTY R/AT KALYANI SHEDTHI COMPOUND, BOKKAPATNA , BOLOOR, MANGALORE- 575006

7. SMT NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY

8. SMT JAYANTHI AGED ABUOT 41 YEARS W/O JAYARAMA SHETTY R/AT SHIVA SHAKTI NIVAS, RAMDAS NAGAR POST, KASARGOD TALUK & DIST KERALA STATE

9. MISS VIJAYA AGED ABUOT 26 YEARS D/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY

10. SRI SHIVANANDA AGED ABUOT 24 YEARS S/O LATE SHEEN SHETTY

11. SMT NALINI AGED ABUOT 22 YEARS W/O PRAKASH SHETTY

9 TO 11 R/T SAVITHRI COMPOUND PINTO LANE, NEAR SATHYANARAYANA BHAJANA MANDIR , BOLAR, MANGALORE

12. SMT SHOBHA SHETTY AGED ABUOT 33 YEARS W/O LATE KESHAVA SHETTY C/O SMT NAGAMMA KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND, NEAR POLRAI KATTE, P O BEJAI, MANGALORE-575004

13. MASTER DEEPAK SHETTY S/O LATE KESHAVA SHETTY REP BY HIS MOTHER & NEXT FRIEND NAMELY RESPONDENT NO.12( A), R/AT KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND, POLRAI KATTE, P O BEJAI, MANGALORE-575004

14. YASHAVANTHA SHETTY AGED ABUOT 38 YEARS S/O LATE SHANKARA SHETTY R/AT KAMALA SHETTTY COMPOUND BEJAI ANEGUNDI MANGALORE

15. SMT SUMATHI SHETTY AGED ABUOT 51 YEARS W/O NAGARAJA SHETTY R/AT KAMALA SHETTTY COMPOUND POLRAI KATTE, P O BEJAI MANGALORE- 575004

16. SHREE SEETHARAMA ALVA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHI R/AT YEKKUR MANGALORE

17. SMT SAMPAVATHI ALVA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O SANKAPPA SHETTY R/AT PLOT NO. 54, WADUJKAR ESTATE, BEGWAN ROAD, BARAMATHI- 413102, PUNE.

18. SRI HEMANTHA ALVA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHEDTHI HOTEL VINAYAKA MARGAW BUS STAND, BARAMATHI, PUNE

19. MR MOHAMMED KUNHI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS KAPILA OIL PUMPWELL, KANKANADY POST MANGALORE-575002

20. MR U ABDULLA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS KAPILA OIL PUMPWELL, KANKANADY POST MANGALORE-575002

21. SMT LEELA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O BUJANGA SHETTY R/AT ENOLI, PAVOOR POST MANGALORE

22. SMT SHAMBAVATHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O VISHWANATHA RAI R/AT ENOLI, PAVOOR POST AND VILLAGE, MANGALORE

23. SMT SOMAKKE SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O SHANTHA SHETTY R/AT IV BLOCK, SITE NO. 180, POST KATIPALLA, MANGALORE

24. SMT SEETHA SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O AITHAPPA SHETTY R/AT ALIYAR HOUSE AMBALAMOGARU VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS

IN R.S.A.2465/2011:

BETWEEN

1. SMT SHAMBHAVATHI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O VISHWANATH RAI R/AT ENOLI, PAVOOR POST MANGALORE

2. SMT SOMAKKAE SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O SHANTHA SHETTY IV BLOCK, SITE NO. 180, KATIPALLA, MANGALORE , D.K

3. SMT SEETHA SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O AITHAPPA SHETTY R/O ALIYAR HOUSE, AMBALAMOGSU VILLAGE, & POST, MANGALORE TALUK. ... APPELLANTS

(By Sri.SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADV.)

AND

1. SMT APPI S PERGADE AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O LATE SHANTHARAM PERGADE

2. THARANATH PERGADE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

3. KRISHNA @ LATHISH PERGADE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

4. PADMA PERGADE AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

2 TO 4 ARE S/O DECEASED SHANTHARAMA PERGADE R/AT KOPPARA THOTA VILLAGE, KANKANADY "B" VILLAGE, KANKANADY, MANGALORE- 575002

5. SMT KALYANI SHEDTHI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O SANJEEVA SHETTY KALYANISHEDTHI COMPOUND BOKKAPATNA BOLOOR, MANGALORE- 575006

6. SMT NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY KAMALASHETTY NEAR POLLARI KATTE, BEJAI, MANGALORE- 575004

7. SMT JAYANTHI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O JAYARAM SHETTY R/O SHAKTHI NIVAS RAMADAS NAGAR, KASARATGODU DISTRICT KERELA – 671121

8. VIJAYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY R/O SHAKTHI NIVAS

R/O KAMALASHETTY COMPOUND, NEAR POLLARI KATTE, BEJAI, MANGALORE- 575004

9. SHIVANANDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE SHEENA SHETTY R/O KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND NEAR POLLARI KATTE, BEJAI, MANGALORE- 575004

10. SMT NALINI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O PRAKASH SHETTY SAVITHRI COMPOUND, PINTO LANE, NEAR SATYANARAYANA BHAJANA MANDIR, BOLOOR, MANGALORE- 575005

11. SMT SHOBHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O LATE KESHAVA SHETTY R/O KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND POLLARI KATTE, P.O. BEJAI, MANGALORE-575004

12. MASTER DEEPAK SHETTY S/O LATE KESHAVA SHETTY MINOR, REP BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL SMT. SHOBHA SHETTY, RESPONDENT NO.12, R/AT KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND, POLLARI KATTE, P.O. BEJAI, MANGALORE- 575004

13. YASHAVANTH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE SHANKARA SHETTY R/O KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND BEJAI, ANEGUNDI MANGALORE- 575004

14. SMT SUMATHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O NAGARAJA SHETTY R/O KAMALA SHETTY COMPOUND BEJAI, ANEGUNDI MANGALORE- 575004

15. SRI VASANTHA ALVA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHETTY R/O THARIGUDDE NEERMARGA, MANGALORE- 575305

16. GULABI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O BHOJA SHETTY R/AT KRISHNAPURA MUTT SURATHKAL, MANGALORE- 575014

17. SEETHARAMA ALVA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHETTY YEKKUR, MANGALORE- 575006

18. RAVINDRA ALVA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O VEERAMMA SHETTY MAJAPE KESANA MOGARU PUDU POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K

19. NARASIMHA ALVA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHETTY BELMA BARIKE HOUSE, BELMAR VILLAGE, DERALAKATTE, MANGALORE TALUK

20. SMT SAMPAVATHI ALVA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O SANKAPPA SHETTY PLOT NO. 54, WADUJKAR ESTATE, BEGWAN ROAD, BARAMATHI- 413102 PUNE

21. HEMANTH ALVA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE VEERAMMA SHETTY R/AT HOTEL VINAYAKA MARGAN, BUS STAND, BARAMATHI PUNE- 413102

22. SMT SUNANDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O JAYA SHETTY GURU PRASA, YUVAKA MANDALA, KRISHNAPURA, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K- 575014

23. MOHAMMED KUNHI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT KAPILA OIL, PUMP WELL, KANAKANADY MANGALORE- 575002

24. U ABDULLA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KAPILA OIL , PUMP WELL, KANAKANADY POST MANGALORE- 575002

25. SMT LEELA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O BHUJANGA SHETTY ENOLI, PAVOOR POST MANGALORE- 575007. ... RESPONDENTS

R.S.A.NO.3/2012 IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 & ORDER XLII RULE 1 R/W ORDER RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.9.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.76/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 5.4.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANGALORE.

R.S.A. NO.80/2012 IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.9.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.76/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:5.4.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANGALORE.

R.S.A.NO.2465/2011 IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

13.9.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.76/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 5.4.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE,

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment dated

13.09.2011 passed by the learned I Addl. District Judge,

D.K., Mangalore, dismissing R.A.No.76/2010 and thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2010 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.40/1996.

2. R.S.A.No.2465/2011 is filed by plaintiffs 1(b), 2 & 3, whereas R.S.A.No.3/2012 is filed by defendants 4(a), 4(b),

4(c), 4(d), 4(e) and 3 & 6. Appellants 7 to 9 in

R.S.A.No.3/2012 were not parties before the Trial Court, but were arrayed as respondents before the lower Appellate

Court. R.S.A.No.80/2012 is filed by defendants 7, 8, 10, 11

& 14. They were arrayed as respondents before the lower

Appellate Court and they were not aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. In other words, it was only plaintiffs 1(b), 2 & 3 who were aggrieved by the

judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and had challenged the same before the lower Appellate Court. All other appellants in the connected appeals had not challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. However, the fact remains that all of them are fighting for share in the properties for which occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the 1st defendant – brother.

3. The suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.40/1996 seeking partition and separate possession of the alleged joint family properties came to be dismissed by the Trial Court holding that the suit schedule lands being the properties for which occupancy rights were conferred in favour of 1 st defendant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the basis of the application filed by him in Form-7, they were the exclusive properties of the 1st defendant, therefore, the plaintiffs who were the sisters (and their legal representatives) were not entitled for partition in the said properties. The Trial Court also found that the 1 st defendant was the exclusive tenant of the land and that as on 01.03.1974, when the lands vested

in the State, plaintiffs and other sisters of the 1st defendant were not the members of the joint family, hence they were not entitled for any share in the granted lands.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the

Trial Court, the unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred

R.A.No.76/2010 before the I Addl. District, Judge, D.K.,

Mangalore. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the lower Appellate Court has concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court, while dismissing the appeal. In this background, challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below, these

Regular Second Appeals are filed.

5. In these appeals, the following contentions are urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants.

(i) Both the courts below have seriously erred in construing the contents of Form-7 marked as Ex.P-1 and the chalageni chit marked as Ex.D-63.

(ii) That the courts below have not applied their mind to the provisions contained under Sections 6 & 24 of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act while coming to the conclusion that the daughters of deceased Doomakke Pergadthi were not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties.

Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of

NARENDRA NATH SUPAKAR VS SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS. –

AIR 2006 (NOC) 723 (JHAR) and also another judgment in the case of MISS T.S.VEDAVALLI VS THE COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE –

1998(4) KAR.LJ 504 . Elaborating the above contention, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that although the documents clearly disclosed that the lands were cultivated by the joint family since time immemorial, both the courts, by wrongly construing the documents have come to an incorrect conclusion that the suit properties were exclusively held by the 1 st defendant as tenant and therefore his sisters were not entitled for any share in the same.

6. I have carefully considered the contentions urged in the light of the findings recorded by both the courts.

7. It is seen from the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below that the application in Form-7 was filed by the 1 st defendant seeking occupancy rights claiming that he was cultivating the land. He has stated in Form-7 that he was cultivating the land for the last 15 years and was a tenant as per the provisions of the Act. Both the courts have considered the Form-7 marked as Ex.P-1 by referring to its contents in coming to the conclusion that the claim of the

1st defendant was not for and on behalf of the family, but it was in his individual capacity.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the courts below have failed to properly construe the statement made in Form-7, wherein he has stated that for the last 60 years the land was being cultivated by the family. In this background, I have perused the findings recorded by the

Trial Court as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Both the courts have specifically referred to the contents of Form-7 and have after appreciation of the same come to the conclusion that the tenancy was not for and on behalf of the joint family, but was individual tenancy of the 1 st defendant.

Useful reference can be made to paragraph 40 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in this regard. It is clearly stated in the said paragraph that in Form-7 – Ex.P-1,

1st defendant had clearly stated that he was the tenant of the lands in question and was cultivating the land since 15 years, he has shown his wife and children as his family members, which indicated that he was cultivating the suit lands for himself and for his family members consisting of his wife and children. The lower Appellate Court has found that even though reference has been made to the cultivation of the land for the last 60 years by the family, the same could not be construed to mean that admittedly the tenancy of the land was that of the undivided joint family consisting of himself and his five sisters. This approach of both the courts below in recording the finding that the tenancy was that of the 1 st defendant and not that of the 1 st defendant and his five sisters jointly, is a factual finding returned after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record.

This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100

CPC cannot re-appreciate the same to come to a contrary conclusion.

9. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant has made an endeavour to contend by referring to Sections 6 &

24 of the Act, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenancy of the 1 st defendant enures to the benefit of his sisters as the land was tenanted initially in favour of the ancestors of the 1 st defendant, there is no foundation in the facts proved before both the courts for this contention. Both the courts have held that the land was cultivated by the 1 st defendant as tenant and that his sisters had no right in the same.

10. Ex.D-63, which is the Xerox copy of the chalageni chit on which reliance is placed by the appellants to contend that the land was tenanted in favour of the mother of deceased 1 st defendant and therefore the appellants who are the daughters of Doomakke Pergadthi have inherited the tenancy rights, the courts below have, upon consideration of Ex.D-63 have come to the conclusion that it was a chalageni chit for a single year and that there was nothing to show that as on

01.03.1974, the land was cultivated by the joint family and the joint family had inherited the tenancy rights. It is

necessary to notice here that if the joint family had inherited the tenancy rights, the sisters who have been married away would have certainly asserted their rights by filing Form-7 in their individual capacity or by joining the 1 st defendant in filing Form-7. They were aware that the 1 st defendant had claimed occupancy rights by filing Form-7 in his individual capacity and was not seeking grant of occupancy rights for himself and on behalf of his sisters. Even the order of the

Land Tribunal makes it clear that occupancy rights were granted exclusively in favour of 1 st defendant. The said order is passed as back as in the year 1978. The sisters- appellants herein did not make any grievance about the same for nearly 18 years. It is relevant to notice here that one item of the land for which occupancy rights was granted came to be sold by the 1 st defendant by a registered sale deed executed in favour of defendants 15 & 16 during the year

1996. It is only thereafter, in the year 1996, that the present suit is brought seeking partition and separate possession of the properties granted exclusively in favour of the 1 st defendant. The courts below have bestowed careful and detailed consideration on this aspect of the matter as well

while holding that there was no justification for the claim made by the appellants. Therefore, neither the provisions of

Sections 6 & 24 of the Act nor the decisions on which the learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As the scope of this appeal is confined only to the substantial questions of law and as both the courts have recorded findings of fact after considering the evidence on record, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration. Hence, these appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed at the stage of admission.

Sd/- JUDGE