The validity of a registered lease deed executed by a relative supersedes an unaccepted Gift Deed when ownership is in question.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, and the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5.

2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 26.10.1976 passed by the Land Tribunal, Savanur.

3. By the said order, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 in respect of property bearing Sy.No.127, measuring 07 acres 25 guntas, situated in Savanur Taluk, Haveri District.

4. The petitioners claim to be the landlords, and their primary contention is that the impugned order, passed in 1976, was without issuing notice to them, as they were minors at that time. This is one of the reasons urged to contend that there is no delay in filing the petition after gaining knowledge in the year 2012 about the order dated 26.10.1976, granting occupancy rights.

5. The petitioners would contend that they came to know about the impugned order only in the year 2012, when they approached the Revenue Court for mutation of their names in the property records. The petitioners have also contented that they are residents of Dharwad and were not aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Savanur. Though the inordinate delay is one of the factors, which the petitioners have to explain before considering the writ petition on merits, the Court has shown indulgence and considered the petitioners claim on merits as well.

6. The property in question admittedly once belonged to Ningappa Shivappa Havanagi. The petitioners claim that their grandfather, Ningappa Shivappa Havangi, executed a registered Gift Deed dated 14.04.1966 in respect of two properties, namely Sy.No.127 measuring 07 acres 25 guntas and Sy.No.126, measuring 21 guntas in favour of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners were minors at the time of execution of the Gift Deed and were represented by their father, Channabasappa.

7. The petitioners contend that the contesting respondents have claimed occupancy rights under a registered lease deed dated 26.07.1968, said to have been executed by Panchappa, the petitioners’ uncle (their father's brother).

8. The primary contention of the petitioners is that Panchappa could not have executed a lease deed in favour of the contesting respondents, as the property in question was gifted to the petitioners by their grandfather under the aforementioned Gift Deed. Thus, it is urged that entire proceeding before the Land Tribunal with notice to Panchappa is invalid, as the petitioners have not been issued any notice before passing the impugned order.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, elaborating on his submissions, contends that the respondents have failed to establish that there was a valid lease in favour of the contesting respondents, inasmuch as the petitioners, who are the lawful owners of the property, did not execute any lease deed in favour of the contesting respondents. The alleged lease deed said to have been executed by the petitioners' uncle, Panchappa, is invalid under law, as Panchappa was not the lawful owner of the property in question. Thus, it is urged that the impugned orders have to be set aside and claim for occupancy has to be rejected.

10. In the alternative, it is urged that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal by setting aside the impugned order, which was passed without notice to the petitioners.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would urge that the alleged Gift Deed dated 14.04.1966 is invalid, and was never acted