Back
1999 Supreme(Kar) 147
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Kumar Rajaratnam
SRI NARAYANA SWAMY - Appellant
Versus
MUNIYAMMA - Respondent
C. R. P. 3282 Of 1996
Decided On : 03/12/1999
Advocates Appeared :
G.V.Thirumale, K.KRISHNA SWAMY
The judgment-debtor, who was previously the owner of the land, became the absolute owner of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and the compromise decree obtained in Execution Appeal 11/75 was held to be executable.
Headnote:
Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Execution of Decree - Sections 44, 55, 61 - The court held that the judgment-debtor, who was previously the owner of the land, became the absolute owner of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The compromise decree obtained in Execution Appeal 11/75 was held to be executable. The judgment-debtor's objections were overruled, and the court found no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. The court also noted the persistent litigation by the judgment-debtor, bordering on an abuse of the process of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment-debtor agreed to sell the suit lands to the decree holders' mother. After a series of litigations and objections, the judgment-debtor claimed that the decree became unexecutable due to the emergence of new species of property under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment-debtor, who was previously the owner of the land, became the absolute owner of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The compromise decree obtained in Execution Appeal 11/75 was held to be executable. The judgment-debtor's objections were overruled, and the court found no merit in the Civil Revision Petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise decree obtained in Execution Appeal 11/75 was executable, and whether the judgment-debtor's objections regarding the unexecutability of the decree were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment-debtor, who was previously the owner of the land, became the absolute owner of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The compromise decree obtained in Execution Appeal 11/75 was held to be executable. The judgment-debtor's objections were overruled, and the court found no merit in the Civil Revision Petition.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with costs. The court also noted the persistent litigation by the judgment-debtor, bordering on an abuse of the process of the court.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a judgment-debtor, respondents 1 and 2 are the decree-holders.
( 2 ) THE respondents 1 and 2 and threir mother Muniyamma had filed a suit in O. S. 47/60 in the Court of the Ilnd Munsiff, bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, for specific performance of the agreement of reconveyance against the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 herein. The said suit was dismissed on 3. 1. 1967. Aggrieved by that respondents 1 and 2 filed R. A. No. 81/67 and the said appeal was allowed. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed R. S. A. Nos. 993/69 and 96. 1/69 which came to be dismissed on 23. 1. 1973. In the meanwhile, the respondents 1 and 2 had already filed execution case in Ex. C. No. 699/70 seeking execution of the decree passed in R. A. No. 81/67. After the bangalore City Court Act came into force, the said execution petition came to be transferred and numbered as Execution No. 1528/87.
( 3 ) THE decree-holders sought to execute the decree. The petitioner judgment-debtor resisted the execution of the decree by filing an application under Section 47 of the Civil procedure Code with a prayer to dismiss the execution petition holding that the decree became a nullity and unexecutable. This application in Execution Petition No. 1528/87 was dismissed by the Court on 4th of October 1996.
( 4 ) THE petitioner-judgrnent-debtor being aggrieved by the dismissal of his application has preferred this revision petition.
( 5 ) MR. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the tenant much prior to the transaction between the respondents 1 or 2 and himself in respect of the subject-matter of execution petition, the petitioner had filed Form No. 7 as per the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Act No. 1/74. After holding an enquiry the land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk had conferred occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner herein against the respondents 1 and 2 in L. R. F. No. 2202/74-75 dated 18. 8. 1977 in respect of land measuring 33 guntas in Sy. No. 27/2 of Belur-Nagasandra village. Against the said order the respondents 1 and 2 herein had preferred Writ Petition No. 7473/78. This court by an order dated 10. 9. 1996 dismissed the said writ petition by confirming the orders of the Tribunal. Thus, the subject-matter of the execution petition came to be vested in the state Government as per Sections 44 (1) and (2) of the Act. Section 44 (2) of the Act reads as follows :" (2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Cout or authority directing or specifying the lands which may -be resumed or in any contract, grant of other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect, on and from the date of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely : (a) all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances; (b) all amounts in respect of such land which became due on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State Government and not to the land owner, landlord or any other person and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid; (c) all arrears of land revenue, ceases, water rate or other dues remain-ing lawfully due on the date of vesting in respect of such lands shall after such date continue to be recoverable from the landowner, landlord or other person by whom they were payable and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be realised by the deduction of the amount of such arrears from the amount payable to any person under this chapter. (d) no such lands shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or other process of any Court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting and any order for a
