The court emphasized that litigants must disclose all relevant facts and cannot rely on previous orders that have attained finality to seek relief.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The above set of six appeals viz., CA Nos.3650- 3655 of 2018 are filed by the self-same appellant viz., M/s Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd., against the common judgment and order dated 26.02.2010 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1708, 1705, 1707, 1709, 1738 of 2006 and 206 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. As per the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed W.A. Nos.1708, 1705, 1707, 1709 of 2006 filed by the appellant herein, WA No 1738 of 2006 filed by one Sr. Basanth Kumar Patil and allowed WA No.206 of 2007 filed by one Sri. Andappa, the first respondent herein. The Civil Appeal No. 3656 of 2018 is filed against the order in IA No.2 of 2007 in WA No.206 of 2007 whereunder the High Court condoned the delay of 1378 days in filing the said writ appeal and despite allowing the impleadment of the appellant herein as respondent No.5 in the said writ appeal and reserving it for pronouncement of judgment without providing the appellant an opportunity to oppose the appeal on merits. The contention of the appellant herein is that it is the condonation of the inordinate delay on 1378 days in filing the said appeal that convoluted the matters and ultimately created a situation calling for resolution in the cases involved in the other bunch of six appeals. We will deal with the said contention appropriately a little later.

2. The appellant herein is a 100% owned subsidiary of Maxim Integrated Products, USA, which claims to be the owner of property comprised in Survey No.1/3 (previously Sy.No.49/43-A) admeasuring 46995 square feet, hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’. It forms part of a larger property admeasuring 2 acres, 29 guntas in Sy. No.49/3 of Jakkasandra village.

3. The further case of the appellant is as under:-

Property in Sy. No.49/3 was initially purchased by Messrs Chinnappa and Munniappa from one Sri. Munivenkatappa. Upon the death of Sr. Chinappa, his rights over the property vested in favour of D. Munniappa and AC Munniappa and other legal heirs. Messrs Krishnappa, s/o Chinappa (respondent Nos.2 herein) and Sri. Andappa, the first respondent herein filed a petition, being LRF No.835/74-75 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘KLR Act’) claiming that they were cultivating properties in Sy. No.49/43 admeasuring 2 acres, 19 guntas along with Sy. No.49/20 admeasuring 20 guntas and in Sy.No.49/17 admeasuring 18 guntas. Tenancy Petition bearing LRF No.1114/74-75 was filed by Kirishna s/o Mundappa s/o Muddanna and Mr. Andappa @ Andi, s/o Muddanna claiming that they were cultivating lands in Sy. Nos.48, 49 and 56 as distinct and different from Sy. Nos.49/3 and 50/2. As per the order dated 10.07.1981, the Land Tribunal dismissed the tenancy petition LRF No.835/74- 75, filed by Krishanappa and Andappa, and the said order in LRF No.835/74-75 had attained finality. Meanwhile, D. Munniappa and AC Munniappa along with the other legal heirs of Chinnappa, mortgaged their land comprised in Sy. Nos.49/43 and Sy. No.50/21 in favour of the Mysore State Financial Corporation to one Mr. ND Mani in order to repay the loan availed from the Mysore State Financial Corporation. Later, some disputes arose between the aforesaid D. Munniappa and AC Munniappa, but then, it was compromised and pursuant to the compromise decree dated 03.03.1989 in OS No.1491/1983 it was agreed that the property bearing Survey Nos.49/43 and 50/21 of Jakkasandra village will be sold to Sh. N.D. Mani for consideration of Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Sh. D. Munniappa and A.C. Munniappa sold the aforesaid property to one Sh. Basant Kumar Patil who was the nominee of Sh. N.D. Mani. Later, Sh. Basant Kumar Patil applied for mutation of Khata in his name, but the Tehsildar rejected the application in respect of Survey No.49/43A being aggrieved by the said order Sh. Basant Kumar Patil filed an appeal before the Asst. Commissioner and the same was objected by the respondent No.1-A