Agreements made during a non-alienation period under land reforms legislation are void and cannot be enforced, leading to a declaration of prior judgments as null.

JUDGMENT :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

1. RSA No.1118 of 2015 is filed by Judgment Debtor No.4, (for short 'JDR') challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2015 passed in RA.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kodagu, at Madikeri, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 29.11.2014 passed in Ex.No.63 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri, dismissing IA No.IX filed by the objectors.

2. RSA No. 1136 of 2015 is filed by Objectors, challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2015 passed in RA.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kodagu, at Madikeri, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 29.11.2014 passed in Ex.No.63 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri, dismissing IA No.IX filed by the objectors.

3. RSA No.1499 of 2015 is filed by Decree Holder/Assignee, challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2015 passed in RA.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kodagu, at Madikeri, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 29.11.2014 passed in Ex.No.63 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri, dismissing IA No.IX filed by the objectors.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

5. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, one M.M. Thimmaiah, and Smt. Malathi, had filed suit in OS No.35 of 1997 on the file of Civil Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 22.02.1993 and the said suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006. Thereafter, the Decree Holders have transferred the decree under Order XXI Rule 16 of CPC in favour of N.M. Ananda-Assignee, (Appellant in RSA No.1499 of 2015). The said assignee has filed an application under Order XXI Rule 16 of CPC, to draft the Sale Deed which came to be allowed by the Trial Court and accordingly, registered Sale Deed was executed in the Execution proceedings. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, JDR No.1 died and his legal representatives were brought on record. JDR No.1(a) and 1(b) have filed application under Order XXI Rule 95 of CPC and sought to object for the execution of the decree. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Executing Court that, the original defendant - S.M. Mallapa, had filed Form No.7, before the Land Tribunal, Somvarpet, seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land and order of Land Tribunal is produced at Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. It is the contention of the objectors that, the Tribunal confirmed the occupancy right in favour of the Judgment Debtor No.1-S.M. Mallappa, and same would enure to the benefit of members of the joint family and therefore, the said S.M. Mallappa, has no authority under law to enter into Agreement dated 22.02.1993 with the plaintiffs, in OS No.35 of 1997. It is further case of the objectors that, the Sale Agreement is hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Agreement of Sale itself is void document and therefore, objected for execution of the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 35 of 1997. The application filed by the objectors in IA No.IX, in Ex.No.63 of 2007 came to be dismissed by order dated 29.11.2014 by the Trial Court and feeling aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of JDR No.1/objectors, have filed RA.No.36 of 2014 before First Appellate Court and the said appeal came to be dismissed, consequently, confirming the order dated 29.11.2014 in Ex.No.63 of 2007. Feeling aggrieved by the same, objectors have filed RSA No.1136 o