Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The facts are as follows:

The first respondent herein has filed a suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction against respondents 2 to 6 herein. It is claimed that he is the owner of the suit schedule property which has been illegally occupied by respondent no.6, who has put up certain construction therein and hence the suit.

The petitioner was not a party to the suit. On learning of the pendency of the same, he had filed an application to implead himself as a party. It is the petitioner’s case that one Nanjappa was the owner of the property. He was the father of respondents 2 to 4 herein and the husband of respondent no.5. It is claimed that the said Nanjappa had parted with the possession of the suit property for a consideration but, as there was a statutory bar under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1966, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity), to execute a sale deed – secondary documents, such as a power of attorney to enable the transferee to hold the property and an affidavit to fortify the transfer, were said to have been executed