AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1190 ::1994 AIR SCW 508 ::1994 (2) SCC 57 ::(2008) 14 Scale 546 ::1994 (2) APLJ 7

Supreme Court Of India

(From : AIR 1978 Karnataka 136)

Hon'ble Judge(s): K. Ramaswamy, N. P. Singh , JJ

Karnataka Land Reforms Act (10 of 1962) , S.48A(5), S.112B, S.133, S.2(ii) Expln.II— as amended by Karn. Act 1 of 1974 Question whether joint family or one of its members is tenant -Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide - Its decision is subject to review under Arts. 226, 227 - Civil Court's jurisdiction is by necessary implication excluded. (1982) 2 Kant LJ 565, Overruled. Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.9— Constitution of India , Art.226, Art.227— If one of the members of the family cultivates the land, it is for and on behalf of the joint family. Under these circumstances, pending the suit, when the question arises whether the member or joint family is the tenant, that question should be decided by the Tribunal alone under S. 48A read with S. 133 and not by the Civil Court. Since the Tribunal constituted under the Act has been invested with the power and jurisdiction to determine the rival claims, it should record the evidence and decide the matter so that its correctness could be tested either in an appeal or by judicial review under Art. 226 or under Art. 227, as the case may be. But it cannot, by necessary implication, be concluded that when rival claims are made for tenancy rights, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted or its decision is subject of the decision once over by the Civil Court. It is clear from S. 48A(5) and S. 112B(bbb) read....