Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 113
High Court of Karnataka
B.S. PATIL, J.
Union of India Represented by the Secy to Govt. of India & Others
Versus
Azmathulla Mekhri & Another
R.F.A. No. 699 of 2012
Decided On : 17-02-2014
For the Appellants: N. Devadas, Sr. Counsel for S. Kalyan Basavaraj, Asst. Solicitor General of India.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, G.S. Bhat & Assts, Udaya Holla, Advocates.
Headnote:
FRAUD - LAND ACQUISITION - LIMITATION - [FRAUD] - [LAND ACQUISITION] - [LIMITATION]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of title and possession of certain properties, alleging that they were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. The defendants, Union of India and the Defence Department, contended that the suit properties were acquired for the Defence Department in 1911 and were in their possession. The suit was originally filed in 1982 seeking permanent injunction, and an amendment seeking declaration of title and possession was allowed in 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, granting occupancy rights to the plaintiffs, was obtained through collusion and misrepresentation, and was not binding on the defendants. The Court also found that the suit properties were acquired for the Defence Department in 1911 and that the relief of declaration of title and possession sought by way of amendment was barred by time.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the order granting occupancy rights to the plaintiffs was obtained through collusion and misrepresentation and was not binding on the defendants. The Court also found that the suit properties were acquired for the Defence Department in 1911 and that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their respective costs.
1. This regular First Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2002 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing O.S. No. 1357/1982 declaring that the plaintiffs respondents herein were the full and absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and directing the defendants Union of India and the Authorities of the Defence Department - appellants 1 to 4 herein to hand over the actual physical possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs, along with costs of the suit.
2. The suit schedule properties consists of Sy.No.7 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas, Sy.No.23 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and Sy.Nos.32 to 36 admeasuring 3 acres 37 guntas, all situated in K.G.Byadarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk which are now part of Bangalore City.
3. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit properties were part of 'Kayam Gutta' land in Kayam GuiLa Village of Byadarahalli. They were originally granted to one Narayanapillai which were later on transferred to one Ramaswamy. The same were subsequently inherited by Yellappa, son of Ramaswamy. According to the plaintiffs, this was recognized by the then Government under 'Niro'cop' dated 26.01.1831 issued by Fouzdar Thimmapparaja Urs to Anil of Krishnarajapur, whereunder grant of the Village to Narayana Pillai on Kayam Gutta basis who authorized, pursuant to a general order dated 08.12.1929 issued by His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore conferring such authority on the Fouzdar. From Narayana Piilai, one Sri Ramaswamy purchased the lands under a Deed of Transfer. Thereafter, in a Court auction one Sri Doddi Suryanarayana Shetty purchased these lands. The said Sri Doddi Suryanarayana Shetty as Jodidar of the Village sold his rights under a Sale Deed dated 02.01.1936 to one Subedar Michael. The said Sri Subedar Michael, thus became the Jodidar of the Village. During his lifetime, he gave these lands to the plaintiffs during the year 1953 for cultivation on payment of rent in cash. Subedar Michael died in the year 1954. Upon his death, one Anthony Michael became the Jodidar being his only son and legal heir.
4. Plaintiffs further contended that father of the plaintiffs was paying kandayam to the said Sri Subedar Michael and his son. The lands came to be vested in the State as per the provisions of the Karnataka (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’) in terms of the notification issued on 15.09.1956 with effect from 02.10.1956. Plaintiffs and their father filed an application seeking occupancy rights, before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore. By order dated 13.08.1976, the Deputy Commissioner granted occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs.
5. It was urged by the plaintiffs, that defendants, having no manner of right, title and interest in the property were trying to interfere with the possession of the properties attempting to put up temporary structure on the lands. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.
6. Initially the plaintiffs sought only the relief of permanent injunction. Nearly after 13 years from the date of filing the suit, an amendment was sought seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession of the property. The application for amendment was filed on 14.02.1995 and the same was allowed on 29.05.1995. The plaintiffs sought for possession of the suit properties from the defendants by way of amendment alleging that during the pendency of the suit the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs.
7. The 3rd defendant -- Military Estates Officer, Bangalore, filed written statement on 09.11.1983 denying the plaint averments. It was contended that as per the Military Land Register the suit schedule properties were acquired by the Ministry of Defence during the year 1911 at a cost of Rs.2857-14 annas 8 paise and that the Military Land Register clearly disclosed that the suit schedule properties belonged
