Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J.
M. Asadulla Khan Deceased by His LRs. Smt. Beedi Jan – Appellant
Versus
B. Lakshmipathiraju Major S/o Venugopalraju – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1474 of 2014
Decided On : 05-12-2018
For the Appellant : Shri Ashok B. Patil.
For the Respondent: Shri P.M. Siddamallappa.
Headnote:
Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Agricultural land - Lease deed - Application for grant of occupancy rights – Challenged - Plaintiffs, and his brother brought instant suit contending inter-alia that agricultural land measuring 9 acres 35 guntas with 10 guntas of kharab land bearing Survey No. 10 situated at village, was purchased by their father - During his life time, had executed a registered lease deed in favour of first defendant, and handed it over to him - Filed an application for grant of occupancy rights under provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 196 - His application was dismissed and plaintiffs came in possession of suit land - They approached revenue authorities to enter their names in record of rights - In meanwhile, defendants No. 2 and 3 attempted to interfere with their possession over suit land on premise that they had purchased land - Whether plaintiffs proved that they were owners in possession of suit land - Whether trial Court’s judgment required any interference – Held, According to plaintiffs, record of proceedings were not available as per endorsement dated issued by Tahasildar of Piriyapatna - This admission establishes that plaintiffs had knowledge of execution of sale deed and same is fortified by their prayer to declare said sale deed as void - But what courts have to decide in a particular case is legal consequence of noncompliance on rights of subject viewed in the light of a concrete state of facts and a continuing chain of events - It may be that what courts are faced with is not so much a stark choice of alternatives but a spectrum of possibilities in which one compartment or description fades gradually into another - At one end of this spectrum there may be cases in which a fundamental obligation may have been so outrageously and flagrantly ignored or defied that subject may safely ignore what has been done and treat it as having no legal consequences upon himself - Appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed
1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs is filed challenging concurrent findings recorded by Courts below, assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2014 passed in R.A. No. 102/2013 on the file of Fast Track Court, Hunsur, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2013 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna in O.S. No. 13/2011.
2. Heard Shri Ashok B. Patil, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri P.M. Siddamallappa, learned advocate for the respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, plaintiffs, M. Asadulla Khan and his brother M. Noorulla Hasan Khan brought the instant suit contending inter-alia that agricultural land measuring 9 acres 35 guntas with 10 guntas of kharab land bearing Survey No. 10 situated at Harve Mallarajapatna village, Piriyapatna Taluk was purchased by their father Mohammed Khan on 10.06.1965. During his life time, Mohammed Khan had executed a registered lease deed on 24.02.1972 in favour of first defendant, Lakshmipathi Raju and handed it over to him. Mohammed Khan died on 17.04.1975. Lakshmipathi Raju filed an application for grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. His application was dismissed on 21.10.1975 and plaintiffs came in possession of the suit land. They approached the revenue authorities to enter their names in the record of rights. In the meanwhile, defendants No. 2 and 3 attempted to interfere with their possession over the suit land on the premise that they had purchased the land. Revenue records obtained by plaintiffs revealed that names of defendants No. 2 and 3 were entered in the record of rights on the strength of a sale deed dated 08.11.1991. With these averments, plaintiffs made three prayers in the suit. Firstly, for a declaration of their title over the suit land. Secondly, for a declaration that sale deed dated 8.11.1991 executed by Lakshmipathi Raju in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 is null and void. Thirdly, for permanent injunction and in the alternative, for possession of the suit land.
5. The tenant, Lakshmipathiraju (first defendant) remained ex-parte. Defendants No. 2 to 4 filed their written statement contending inter-alia that Mohammed Khan had executed a lease deed in favour of Lakshmipathiraju on 24.02.1972 and the same was duly registered. After the advent of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, occupancy rights of suit land have been granted in favour of Lakshmipathi Raju on 15.05.1975 by the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, he has sold the land in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and put them in possession of the land and their names have been entered in the revenue records. Thus, in substance, the purchasers (defendants No. 2 and 3) set up their title and possession over the suit land.
6. Based on the pleadings, trial Court framed six issues. The first and the third issues are crucial. The first issue is, whether plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in lawful possession of the suit property and the third issue is, whether defendants prove that first defendant became the absolute owner of the suit property, as per Land Tribunal’s order dated 15.05.1975.
7. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, second plaintiff, Noorulla Hassan Khan was examined as PW-1 and exhibits P1 to P12 marked. On behalf of the defendants, second defendant Rajashekhara was examined as DW-1 and exhibits D1 to D26 marked.
8. Trial Court answered issues No. 1, 2, 5 and 6 in the negative, issues No. 3 and 4 in the affirmative and dismissed the suit.
9. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court framed two points for its consideration. The first point is, whether plaintiffs proved that they were the owners in possession of suit land. The second point is, whether trial Court’s judgment required any interference.
10. On re-appr
