The agreement for sale is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the defendant is not entitled to the benefit of part performance to maintain his possession over the suit schedule property.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Mulimani, J. - The appellants have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gokak, dismissing the appeal in R.A.52/2000 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2000 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gokak, in O.S. No.267/1995.

2. It will be convenient to refer to the parties in their original characters of plaintiff/s and defendant/s bearing in mind that the plaintiff/s are now appellant/s and defendant/s are now respondent/s.

3. It is the case of plaintiff that the original propostius Laxmappa had three sons namely Fakirappa, Lakkappa and Balappa. Balappa had gone in adoption to one Balawwa in the same village. The original propositus Laxmappa died long back leaving behind his two sons Lakkappa and Fakirappa as his legal heirs. During the life time of original propositus, they formed a Hindu joint family and that the joint family possessed certain immovable properties. After the death of the original propositus, the father of plaintiff and father of defendant continued the joint family for some time. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 1978 leaving behind plaintiff as his legal heir and the father of the defendant died in the year 1994 leaving behind defendant and five daughters as his legal heirs.

It is averred in the plaint that originally family of plaintiff and defendant possessed immovable properties bearing Block No.5/11 area measuring 03 acres 16 guntas., Block No.5/12 area measuring 03 acres 04 guntas., and land Block No 302/2 area measuring 04 acres 20 guntas., all situated within the revenue limits of Upparatti village, Gokak Taluk.

It is the case of plaintiff that all these lands were tenanted lands of the original propositus. The lands were in joint possession and enjoyment of the father of plaintiff and father of defendant. Hence, they are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant. It is stated that there was a partial partition in landed properties between the father of plaintiff and father of defendant. In that partition, the suit property was fallen to the share of father of plaintiff and block No.5/11 had fallen to the share of father of defendant. The land bearing Block No.302/2 remained in joint possession and enjoyment of both the father of plaintiff and father of defendant.

The partition was orally effected by the original propositus. After the said oral partition, the father of plaintiff was in possession of suit property bearing block No.5/12. The father of defendant was in possession of land bearing Block No.5/11 as tenants. The land Block No.302/2 remained in joint possession and enjoyment of both plaintiff's and defendant's father. But the name of defendant's father appeared in the record of rights as a tenant on behalf of the joint family after the death of the original propositus.

The father of plaintiff filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Gokak for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit property. The same was granted in his favour in the year 1978. Since then, he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the property and after his death, the plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same.

The father of defendant filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Gokak for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Block No.5/11 and the same was granted in his favour in the year 1975. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After his death, defendant is in actual possession and enjoyment of the property.

Plaintiff further pleaded that, in the month of September 1995, defendant started interfering and obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also obstructed plaintiff's agricultural operations. It is also averred that defendant challenged the right, title and interest over the suit schedule property contending that he is the owner o