TENANT UNDER MYSORE LAND REVENUE CODE 1888

LAND REVENUE CODE 1888 SECTION 79. Amount of rent payable by tenant. A person placed, as tenant, in possession of land by another, or, in that capacity, holding, taking or retaining possession of land permissively from or by sufferance of another, shall be regarded as holding the same at the rent, or for the services, agreed upon between them; or, in the absence of satisfactory evidence of such agreement of the rent payable or services renderable by the usage of the locality, or, if there be no such agreement or usage, shall be presumed to hold at such rent as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall be just and reasonable. And, where, by reason of the antiquity of a tenancy, no satisfactory evidence of its commencement is forthcoming, and there is not any such evidence of the period of its intended duration, if any, agreed upon between the landlord and tenant, or those under whom they respectively claim title, or any usage of the locality as the duration of such tenancy, it shall, as against the immediate landlord of the tenant, be presumed to be co-extensive with the duration of the tenure of such landlord and of those who derive title under him.

Explanation. In the following cases, such a presumption shall be raised.

(1) where the tenant has been recognised as a permanent tenant by the landlord or by a Court in a suit to which the landlord was a party;

(2) where a tenant holds land in respect of which any alienation has been recognised by the landlord or by a Court in a suit to which the landlord was a party or where the alienation has not been contested by the landlord for twelve years from the date of the service of notice of alienation to the landlord;

(3) where for the better cultivation of the holding the tenant has made permanent improvements thereon to the knowledge of the landlord and has been in undisturbed possession of the holding continuously for twelve years thereafter: provided that the landlord has made no contribution for such improvements nor recovered enhanced rent from the tenant nor given any notice in writing to the tenant that such improvements would not create any new rights;

(4) where, in the absence of a contract regarding the nature and duration of the tenancy, the tenant has established that he has been in continuous possession on payment of fixed rent for a period of twelve And where there is no satisfactory evidence of the capacity in which a person in possession of land in respect of which he renders service or pays rent to the landlord, receives, holds or retains possession of the same, it shall be presumed that he is in possession as tenant. Nothing contained in this section shall affect the right of the landlord (if he have the same either by virtue of agreement, usage or otherwise) to enhance the rent payable, or services renderable, by the tenant, or to evict the tenant for non-payment of the rent or non-rendition of the services, either respectively originally fixed or duly enhanced as aforesaid.

ENTRY IN REVENUE RECORD CANNOT BE REBUTED BY MERE STATEMENT

Karewwa And Ors. vs Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri AIR 2002 SC 504 (2002) 10 SCC 315 We do not dispute the legal position as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the presumption of correctness of an entry in revenue record cannot be rebutted by a statement in the written statement. Mere statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record. The respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record in the year 1973 and under law the presumption is that the entry is correct. It was for the appellant to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The appellant has not led any evidence to show that entry in the revenue record is Incorrect. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention.

FAMILY ARRANGEMENT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED

Fakirappa Bailappa Kambar v. Kristappa Bailappa Kambar, ILR 1985 KAR 3063. Wherein the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has held as follows: "It is open to the members of the coparcenary to arrange amicably separate possession and enjoyment of the family properties without effecting partition or disruption of the joint family, but at the same time whether co-owners in exclusive possession of different portions of joint family property held the same in the partition or under an arrangement as to the possession, depends upon the intention to the parties which has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. Where direct evidence of intention is available, there is no difficulty in determining the question. In cases where such direct evidence of intention is wanting, the fact that the members have been living separately and enjoying the properties, separately may be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusions but that is not conclusive... where exclusive possession of land by co-owners is not in conformity with the shares of respective parties, generally, the indication is that it is not a partition, but it may be an arrangement not intended to be permanent. Therefore, the fact that the parties were in possession of different properties and different properties have been entered in their individual names in the record or rights, is not by itself sufficient to hold that there was such a partition .... Nothing turns out from the long duration. It depends upon the affinity and nature of relationship of the parties. A provisional arrangement which for some reason continued for a long time without objections does not take away its provisional character and make it permanent. There must be some other evidence indicating that the parties have been living separately under a permanent arrangement or partition".


Dayal, Raghubar Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. Mst Bhagirathi, 1966 AIR 405, 1966 SCR (1) 606 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "There is a strong presumption in favour of Hindu brothers constituting a joint family. It is for the person alleging severance of the Joint Hindu Family to prove it. The mere fact that after the death of the father mutation entry was made in favour of three brothers and indicated the share of each to be one-third, by itself could be no evidence of the severance of the joint family which, after the death of the father consisted of the three brothers who were minors" …. The appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the entry in the name of the respondent in the Jamabandi papers of certain villages was incorrect and alleged that they along with their brother, the husband of the respondent, constituted a joint Hindu family, that their brother died as a member of the joint Hindu family and thereafter his widow- the respondent--lived with the appellants who continued to be owners and possessors of the property in suit, the widow being entitled to maintenance only, and that by mistake the respondent's name was entered in village records in place of the deceased husband. The respondent contested the suit alleging, inter alia, that her husband did not constitute a joint Hindu family with the appellants at the time of his death and also that the suit was barred by time as she had become owner and possessor of the land in suit in 1925 on the death of her husband when the entries in her favour were made, and the suit was brought in 1951. The respondent had admitted in certain documents about the existence of the joint Hindu family or a joint Hindu family firm. The trial Court decreed the suit, which on appeal, the High Court set aside. The High Court did not use the admissions of respondent as she, when in the witness box, was riot confronted with those admissions; and as those documents, if read as a whole did not contain any admissions on behalf of the respondent that there was any joint family still in existence. In appeal by certificate to this Court. HELD : (i) There is a strong presumption in favour of Hindu brothers constituting a joint family. It is for the person alleging severance of joint Hindu family to establish it. The mere fact of the mutation entry being made in favour of the respondent on the death of her husband was no clear indication that there was no joint Hindu family of the appellant, and the respondent's husband at the time of the latter's death. 

Fazalali, S Murtaza Supreme Court in Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1976 AIR 807, 1976 SCR (2) 202  wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows : "The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. The registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and is therefore, not compulsorily registrable. The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same. Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement".

 The object of a family arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strife which mars the unity and the solidarity of the family. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth, instead of concentrating tho same in the hands of a few, is a milestone in the ad ministration of social justice. Where by consent of the parties a matter has been settled, the courts have learned in favour of upholding such a family arrangement instead of disturbing it on technical or trivial grounds. Where the courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or 1 formal defect, the rule of estoppel is applied to shut out the plea of the person who being a party to the family arrangement, seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits.

(i) The family settled must be bona fide so as to resolve family disputes. (ii) It must be voluntary and not induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (iii) It may be even oral, in which case and registration is necessary; (iv) Registration is necessary only if the terms are reduced to writing but where the memorandum has been prepared after the family arrangement either for the purpose of record or for information of court, the memorandum itself do not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property and, therefore. does not fall within the mischief of s. 17(2) of the Registration Act and is not compulsorily registrable; (v) The parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest, even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. But, even where a party has no title and the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then, the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld by the courts; (vi) Where bona fide disputes are settled by a bona fide family arrangement. such family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to settlement.

K Ramaswamy, B Hansaria Hon'ble Supreme Court in Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil, AIR 1995 SC 1728, 1995 (2) SCALE 802, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 428 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under Hindu law, it is not necessary that the partition should be effected by a registered partition deed. Even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate the partition between coparceners and to confer right to a separate share and enjoyment thereof.

HOW TO KNOW TENANCY IN AGRICULTURAL LAND BEFORE TRIBUNAL

Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ 484 The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act) came into force on 2-10-1965. The object of the said Act, inter alia, is to terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant and to confer ownership rights on the tenants. Landlords are prohibited from evicting their tenants. Section 14 of the Act permitted resumption subject to the terms and conditions laid down therein. Section 14 has now been deleted by the Karnataka Amendment Act No. 1 of 1974. Section 25 provides for surrender of lands held by a tenant. The said section, before it was amended by Karnataka Amendment Act No. 1 of 1974 read thus: "25 Surrender of land by tenant:-- (1) No tenant shall surrender any land held by him as such, and no landlord shall enter upon the land surrendered by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the court. (2) Permission under Sub-section (1) shall be granted if, after making such inquiry as may be prescribed, the court is satisfied that the proposed surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the extent of land which landlord could have resumed from his tenant under Section 14; in other cases, the permission shall be refused....." By Section 25 a bar was imposed against surrender of any land held by a tenant without the previous permission in writing of the 'court'. The Court can grant permission after making enquiry if it is satisfied that the proposed surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the extent of land which the landlord could have resumed from his tenant under Section 14. The section further barred the landlords from entering upon the land surrendered by their tenants without the previous permission in writing obtained from the Court. Thus there is a prohibition against surrender of any land by a tenant and a further prohibition against the landlord from entering upon the land surrendered by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the Court.

Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ 484 When Govinda Naika and Badiya Naika were admittedly the tenants of the suit lands up to 1971 when the Act was in force and there has been no sur-render by them under Section 25 which alone can be taken cognisance of by the Courts, the Court below should have drawn the legal presumption that their possession has continued. In order to obtain the relief of injunction it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to produce documents showing that their possession continued even after 1971. The possession of the suit lands in the eye of law always remained with the tenants. The entry of defendant 1 on the suit lands is prohibited by Section 25(1) of the Act. That prohibition is an injunction against landlords not to enter upon the lands held by tenants without the previous permission in writing of the Court. Each entry by defendant 1 upon the suit lands constitutes an act of trespass and a clear invasion of the legal rights of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs have shown that they have a legal right and that legal right is invaded by the unlawful acts of the defendants, they are entitled to the relief of injunction at the hands of the Civil Court.

Justice D Chandrashekhar, Justice P Bopanna in Puttegowda v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1980 Kant 102, ILR 1980 KAR 160, 1980 (1) KarLJ 281 wherein it was held that.- "Mere permission to surrender without delivery of possession by the tenant does not put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Delivery of possession by the tenant to the landlord and his acceptance of possession are essential to effect the surrender. Where it was not proved that the tenant had delivered possession of the land notwithstanding grant of permission to surrender, but was found to be in possession even after the grant of permission to surrender, held that he continued to be a tenant and was entitled to grant of occupancy right".

Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar, Vasantha Nanasaheb Pawar And Ors. vs Piraji Pandu Patil ILR 2006 KAR 2061, 2006 (3) KarLJ 172 In support of his case, the tenant has examined two independent neighbouring witnesses apart from examining himself. Both the said witnesses have deposed in categorical terms that 1st respondent herein is cultivating the property in question as tenant. Though they are cross-examined by the landlords, nothing worth is elicited in their cross-examination so as to discard their evidence, Thus, the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses fully supports the case of the tenant 1st respondent herein. ………………………………….. Merely because the revenue entries stand in the name of the petitioners would not mean that there is no relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties. The revenue entries do not take away the established case of the 1^st respondent The presumption arising out of the revenue records stand rebutted in view of consistent, cogent and clinching evidence relating to the 1st respondent's possession over the property in question as a tenant……………….. No neighbouring land holders are examined by the land lords on their behalf. The said admissions by BW-1 would amply make it clear that they are absentee land owners and that they have never cultivated the land In question.

Justice H Narayan, Hanumanthappa Gonappa Talwar vs The Special Deputy Commissioner 1998 (1) KarLJ 683 It is now settled by the ruling of these decisions that whether an application of the tenant filed in Form 7 is rejected or whether an order of the Tribunal holding that a particular applicant is not a tenant, it is the duty of the Tribunal to give a finding whether the particular land is a tenanted land or not as on the date of coming into force of the Act, that is the legally vesting and that determines the nature of the land.

PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF LAND REVENUE RECORD ENTRY IN KARNATAKA

Karnataka Land Revenue Act Section 128 (4) : Acquisition of rights to be reported: 4. No document by virtue of which any person acquires a right in any land as holder, occupant, owner, mortgage, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or revenue thereunder, shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 unless the person liable to pay the registering authority such fees as may be prescribed for making the necessary entries in the record of rights and registers referred to in Section 129; and, on the registration of such a document, the registering authority shall make a report of the right to the prescribed officer.

Section 129 (2) Whenever a prescribed officer makes as entry in the Register of Mutations, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in the chavadi and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be interested in the mutation, and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein.

Section 129 (6) Entries in the Register of Mutations shall be tested and if found correct or after correction, as the case may be, shall be certified by such officer as may be prescribed.

Section 129 (7) The transfer of entries from the Register of Mutations to the Record of Rights shall be effected in the prescribed manner, provided that any entry in the Register of Mutations shall not be transferred to the Record of Rights until such entry has been duly certified.

Justice R Jois, Justice Ramakrishna in  Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Sri Murugharajendra Bruhan Mutt of Chitradurga vs Deputy Commissioner  ILR 1986 KAR 1059, 1986 (1) KarLJ 373 “Chapter XI of the Act,(Karnataka Land Revenue Act)  which regulates the making of the entry in the Record of Rights. Section 127 of the Act deals with the preparation of record of rights according to the prescribed procedure. According to Sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Act, the record of rights so prepared and completed in respect of any village is required to be published in the Official Gazette in such manner as may be prescribed. In other words, this provision relates to the preparation of record of rights in the first instance under the provisions of the Act. Section 128 of the Act provides for reporting of the acquisition of rights in respect of lands covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, whenever any person acquires the right to any landed property for which the Act applies from its original owner by lease, mortgage, gift, purchase etc., the said Section provides for reporting of such acquisition of rights and for receiving it by the authority specified on payment of prescribed fee. Section 129 prescribes the procedure for registration of mutations reported under Section 128. Sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Act provides for making an entry in the register of mutations of every report made to him under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 129 of the Act provides for publication of a copy of the entry so made as also for giving written intimation to all persons interested, as disclosed in the revenue records. If there were to be any objections,, Sub-section (3) requires the prescribed officer to enter the particulars of the objection in the register of disputed cases. Sub-section (4) of Section 129 of the Act empowers the prescribed authority to decide the disputes following the procedure as prescribed under Sub section (5). Subsection (6) of Section 129 of the Act provides for making an entry and certifying the entry relating to mutations in accordance with the order made after such inquiry. Sub-section (7) of Section 129 provides for transfer of certified entries made in the register of mutations to the record of rights. Section 135 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of an order made under any of the provisions of the Chapter against the Government. The proviso under the said provision, however, provides that a person aggrieved by any entry made in any record or register may institute a suit against any person denying or interested in denying his title to such right and also provides that the entries in the record of right shall be amended in accordance with any declaration granted by the Civil Court.”

Justice H.V.G. Ramesh, in  Mahadevappa And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka ILR 2008 KAR 1750 It is high time to intimate the Revenue Department and the concerned Department to meticulously follow the procedure as provided under Section 128 & 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also it should be made mandatory as a matter of responsibility on the part of the Government to save the public from the precarious situation and also there shall be timely action by the revenue authorities without there being any delay on their part in making entries in the mutation register and other registers in the revenue office and in the Corporation/Municipality in city limits to avoid future complications. ……. Government Pleader to communicate this order to the Government and the Government in turn shall direct Secretary to Revenue Department to circulate this order in the department to follow the procedure as provided under Section 128 & 129 of the Land Revenue Act for due compliance and taking follow up action. For such non-compliance by the concerned Revenue Authorities, the Department shall prescribe some norms to initiate action.

Bhimappa Channappa Kapali ... vs Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda ILR 2002 KAR 3055, 2003 (2) KarLJ 148 Bench Justice  N Jain, Justice N Kumar, “The entry in the RTC is made during the pendency of the legal proceedings initiated by Shivawwa for cancellation of the gift deed and more so it is on the basis of a collusive vardhi, as such the said entry would not give rise to any presumption. That apart she submitted that before an entry is made in the RTC in the name of the deceased appellant, the procedure prescribed in law under Sections 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Act has not been followed, as such no presumption would arise under Section 133 of the said Act…… Any person who does not lawfully enter on the land of another and cultivate the same cannot claim the status of a deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Act. Though, in the case of Dahya Lala, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held it is not the condition that the applicant must cultivate land with the consent or under the authority derived directly from the owner, to import such a condition is to rewrite the section, and destroy its practical utility, a person who derives his right to cultivate land from the owners would normally be a contractual tenant and he will obviously not be a "deemed tenant". Persons such as licensees from the owner may certainly be regarded as falling within the class of persons lawfully cultivating the land belonging to others, but it cannot be assumed therefrom that they are the only persons who are covered by the section. A tenant lawfully inducted by a mortgagee shall on redemption of the mortgage be deemed to be a tenant under the mortgagor…."Lawfully cultivating" must have some foundation in a legal right to cultivate the property. Lawful cultivation cannot Be established without concomitant existence of a lawful relationship. Lawful cultivation must have origin in a legal right to cultivate the property. In the absence of any such right to cultivate, it cannot be said that merely because a person is cultivating the land he is held to be in lawful cultivation. A person who cultivates the land against the wishes of the owner cannot be said to be in lawful cultivation. Merely because no action is taken against him and he has continued to cultivate for a considerable period of time would not make his cultivation lawful. The essence of lawful cultivation is that one should enter possession of the land under some colour of right and cultivate the land as a matter of right, otherwise it cannot be said that he is in lawful cultivation of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any legal right a person who is cultivating the land cannot claim a status of deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Act.

In Jayamma v. Maria Bai Dead by proposed L.Rs. and Another [(2004) 7 SCC 459], this Court has held that when an assignment or transfer is made in contravention of statutory provisions, the consequence whereof would be that the same is invalid and thus opposed to public policy………….