https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200332 The court held that the Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the suit pending the Land Tribunal's decision on tenancy, rendering the judgment and decree non est. Defendants' passive participation did not amount to acquiescence in the court's jurisdiction. The court found the Civil Judge's actions in contravention of Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, vacating the decree against defendants 1 and 2 on certain items. The appeal was partially allowed, directing a fresh disposal of the relevant suit items by the lower court post the Tribunal's decision, with each party bearing their own costs. en-us Wed, 01 Jan 1800 00:00:00 +0553 Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:14:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200332 The court held that the Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the suit pending the Land Tribunal's decision on tenancy, rendering the judgment and decree non est. Defendants' passive participation did not amount to acquiescence in the court's jurisdiction. The court found the Civil Judge's actions in contravention of Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, vacating the decree against defendants 1 and 2 on certain items. The appeal was partially allowed, directing a fresh disposal of the relevant suit items by the lower court post the Tribunal's decision, with each party bearing their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Jan 1800 00:00:00 +0553 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200332