Hudugaranganaika vs Govramma

Jagannatha Shetty, J.—This is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Tumkur (Sri D. Ponmirangam) u/s 113 of the CPC in an appeal pending before him u/s 118 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. That appeal arose in this way.

The landlord filed a statement u/s 14 for resumption of certain lands in possession of her tenant. The Munsiff granted resumption to the extent of half the lands and accordingly, a certificate was also issued. The landlady, while seeking to execute the said certificate claiming possession thereof, the tenant objected stating that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction but the Deputy Commissioner should execute the same. The Munsiff overruled the tenant''s objection against which he (tenant) preferred an appeal before the District Judge

The learned District Judge finding it unable to understand the scope of Sections 14 and 116 of the Land Reforms Act stated in the last part of his order as fellows:

.................. I am sending the entire records of this case to the Hon''ble High Court of Mysore, Bangalore, for perusal, opinion and guidance in respect of the procedure that is to be followed when an application is filed to the Court with the Certificate of the landlord u/s 14 of the Land Reforms Act and for guidance in that regard.--

The reference, as already stated, has been made u/s 113, CPC but we do not think that the said reference falls under that section. Learned Counsel on both sides also submitted that the reference it an incompetent one and we agree with them. A bare scrutiny of Section 113, CPC makes it near that a reference of this nature is wholly.

We therefore, reject the reference. (Let the records be returned to the Court below expeditiously).