Case Note & Summary
The appellant, defendant no.13 in a partition suit, was aggrieved by the dismissal of his Regular First Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's decree declining to allot him any share in the bane suit lands. The plaintiffs (respondent nos.1-7) and the appellant were different branches of the same family. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, alleging that the appellant was in wrongful possession of 10 acres of the suit lands as an encroacher and sought his eviction. The appellant filed a written statement claiming absolute ownership and possession of wet lands bearing survey nos. 180, 183, 179/1, 179/2 in Ballyamandoor village, and consequently a share in the adjacent bane lands. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the appellant failed to establish possession of any wet lands entitling him to a share in the bane lands, based on his own evidence. The High Court affirmed this finding. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising two main issues: (1) that bane lands could not be partitioned, relying on Nandinaravanda Medappa v. Nandinaravanda Ganapathy, and (2) that the trial court misappreciated his evidence regarding possession of wet lands. The respondents contended that the suit was maintainable under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as held by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Machettira Machaiah v. Machettira Kariappa, which overruled the earlier decision. The Supreme Court held that the maintainability issue was settled by the Full Bench decision. On facts, the Court noted that the appellant admitted in cross-examination that he resided in Harihara village, was allotted lands there in a family partition, and did not know the survey numbers of the wet lands he claimed in Ballyamandoor village. The trial court found that the survey numbers he claimed were actually in possession of other defendants. The High Court also observed that the appellant did not claim ownership by adverse possession. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, which were based on the appellant's own evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Bane Lands - Nature of Tenure - Bane lands are lands adjacent to private wet lands (warga lands) assigned free of revenue for beneficial enjoyment such as collection of firewood, manure, grazing, etc. - Coorg Revenue Manual, 1954 (Appendix III) - The appellant claimed a share in bane lands based on alleged possession of wet lands, but failed to prove possession of any wet lands in the relevant village. (Paras 7-8) B) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Suit - Partition of Bane Lands - A suit for partition of bane lands is maintainable in view of Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Full Bench decision in Machettira Machaiah v. Machettira Kariappa, AIR 1994 Karnataka 52, overruling Nandinaravanda Medappa v. Nandinaravanda Ganapathy, (1979) 2 Kant LJ 22. (Paras 5, 7) C) Evidence - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference by Supreme Court - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and High Court that the appellant failed to establish possession of wet lands entitling him to a share in bane lands, as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to a share in the bane suit lands based on his claim of possession of wet lands in Ballyamandoor village, and whether the suit for partition of bane lands was maintainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court that the appellant failed to establish possession of any wet lands in Ballyamandoor village entitling him to a share in the bane suit lands. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Law Points
- Bane lands are appurtenant to warga lands
- no independent ownership
- suit for partition of bane lands maintainable
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
