Back
High Court of Karnataka
S. ABDUL NAZEER
Chikkasiddappa & Another
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Others
Writ Petition Nos.24245-246 of 2011 (BDA)
Decided on : 03-07-2012
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - Section 43: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Applicability of principle of Feeding grant by estoppel -- It was not a case of transferee that because of fraudulent or erroneous representation made by transferor they had purchased property - They were not even entitled to seek restoration of interest in property because their transferor had not acquired any interest in property under recoveyance scheme - Held, Principle of feeding grant by estoppels is not applicable.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976 - Section 38-C: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Site formed on land acquired by erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board - Resolution passed by Board to reconvey site, by way of allotment, to erstwhile owner of land, on ground that it was not practicable to include site in its development scheme - Reconveyance of site sought for by third party claiming to be bona fide purchaser of site from erstwhile owner of land for valuable consideration - Held, As the erstwhile owner of land had ceased to have title or saleable interest in site, sale deed executed by her in respect of site is null and void, and claim made by vendee under said sale deed, for reconveyance of site in his favour is not maintainable, and more so where site in question had already been allotted to another party.
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - Section 43: [S. Abdul Nazeer, J] Feeding grant by estoppels - Held, This section embodies the rule of estoppel by deed. In cases falling under this Section, the estoppel rests on the representation made by the transferor that he is authorized to transfer, which representation turns to be erroneous. But when the truth of the matter is known to both, there can be no estoppels. Thus, for applying the principles of feeding back, it is necessary that there must be fraudulent or erroneous representation by the transferor in relation to his title and the transferee must have agreed on it and subsequently, a title is acquired by such transferor. In that case, transferor cannot be held to allege anything contrary as against any person who acts on that representation. Before this principle is applied, it has to be found out whether, in fact, transferee has been misled and whether there was any erroneous fraudulent representation and the transferee has acted on it….. Where the transferee knows as a fact that the transferor does possess the title which he represents he has, then he cannot be said to have no application. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners that because of the fraudulent or erroneous representation made by Smt. Girija Devi, they have purchased the property. They are not even entitled to seek restoration of interest in the property under the reconveyance scheme. Therefore, it is futile to contend that the petitioners are entitled for reconveyance/allotment of the site under the principle of feeding the grant by estoppels.
1. In these cases, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the endorsements at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ dated 8.2.2011 and 11.5.2011 respectively, whereby their applications for reconveyance of site No.244-A, West of Chord Road, First Stage, First Block, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar Extension, Bangalore, has been rejected.
2. The petitioners contend that they had purchased the aforesaid site under a registered sale deed dated 1.7.1974 from one Smt.Girija Devi. The said site was formed in Sy.No.115/3, Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore North Taluk. The entire Sy.No.115/3 was included in the reconveyance scheme formulated by the erstwhile CITB as per its resolutions dated 26.12.1974 and 25.3.1975. Therefore, the petitioners made applications requesting the 2nd respondent to reconvey the site in question in their favour. Since the said applications were not considered, they filed a suit O.S.No.744/1992 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, for a direction to the respondents to reconvey the site. The suit was decreed and the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for reconveyance in accordance with law. In response to the said direction, the 2nd respondent called for a report from the Surveyor, who had reported that site No.86-F, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, has been allotted to one Sri. Venkatagiri Gowda on 13.8.1974. A sale deed dated 7.8.1992 in respect of the said site was also executed by the BDA in his favour. Site No.86-F, allotted to Venkatagiri Gowda, corresponds to or includes the site in question. After the death of Venkatagiri Gowda, his son Venkataramaiah had succeeded to the said property. The 3rd respondent has become the owner of the said site after the death of his father Venkataramaiah. It is contended that the father of the 3rd respondent was the Personal Secretary to the then Chairman of the BDA and that at his behest, the Surveyor had furnished a false report.
3. Sri. M.S. Varadarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had purchased site No.244-A under a deed of sale dated 1.7.1974 from Smt. Girija Devi. The said site was formed in Sy.No.115/3, Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore North Taluk. The said survey number was included in the reconveyance scheme formulated by the erstwhile CITB. Therefore, the BDA ought to have reconveyed the site in favour of the petitioners under Section 38-C of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the BDA Act’). Alternatively, it is contended that though the land was acquired before the purchase of the site by the petitioners, they are entitled for reconveyance on the principle of feeding the grant by estoppel embodied in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is further contended that site No.86-F was allotted in favour of the grand father of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners are seeking reconveyance of a different site bearing No.244-A. The report submitted by the Surveyor that the site No.244-A corresponds to site No.86-F is false and on that basis, the 2nd respondent should not have rejected the applications of the petitioners.
4. Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that Survey No.115/3 of Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore North Taluk, was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the then CITB. Final notification was issued on 9.3.1971 and possession was taken thereafter. After vesting of the land with the CITB, the petitioners have purchased site No.244-A from Smt. Girija Devi under a deed of sale dated 1.7.1974. Smt. Girija Devi had no saleable interest in the site. After the formation of the layout, the site was renumbered as No.86-F, which was allotted in favour of Sri. Venkatagiri Gowda, the grand father of the 3rd respondent, on 7.8.1992. Therefore, the petitioners have no legal right to claim the reconveyance under Section 38-C of the BDA Act.
5. Sri.
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
