A legal heir cannot challenge a sale deed executed by the deceased on the grounds of non-alienation provisions under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, when the transferor acquiesced to the transfer during his lifetime, and the statutory right to challenge such transfer belongs to the State Government.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH XLII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL IN R.A.NO.13/2017; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2017 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KITTUR IN O.S. NO.139/2015; ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DECREEING THE SUIT OF APPELLANT IN O.S.NO.139/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KITTUR AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Even though the appeal is at the stage of admission, heard the arguments of both side.

2. This is the appeal filed under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 CPC praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 in RA No.13/2017, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal (herein after for short ”First Appellate Court”); to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2017, passed in OS No.139/2015 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Kittur (hereinafter for short “trial Court”) and to decree the suit of the appellant.

3. Parties would be referred to their ranks as they were before trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. Plaintiff has filed the suit before trial Court praying for the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 12.03.1981 came into existence when there is an entry of name of Government in the revenue records as null and void; alternatively, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the sale deed is valid, then the Court may pass decree in favour of plaintiff based on adverse possession that plaintiff’s husband and plaintiff are in continuous possession of suit schedule property adverse to the interest of the real owner; for the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property; for Court costs and for such other reliefs.

5. The case of plaintiff before trial Court in nut shell is that suit schedule property was fertile land and it came to her husband’s family as Patilaki Inam Land. After coming into force of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, the suit schedule property was re-granted to husband of plaintiff on 16.05.1974 and there was a clause of non-alienation for 15 years in the said re-grants order. Further, the husband of plaintiff became surety in CC No.353/1978 for an accused on the file of Munsiff and JMFC., Court, Lakshmeshwara and thus his property was attached in that case as per MAG.CR. No.14/1979 dated 24.12.1979 and the name of Government is shown in column No.9 of the RTC. Even then, husband of plaintiff was cultivating suit schedule property bearing survey No.4 measuring 22 guntas out of 1 acre 5 guntas. Her husband died on 05.02.2011 and then plaintiff continued her ownership and possession over suit schedule property. Husband of plaintiff has never sold suit schedule property to defendant and not received sale consideration amount and not handed over possession to him. Even then, defendant concocted sale deed dated 12.03.1981 but he will not get any right, title or interest or possession in or over suit schedule property through said document. If the court comes to the conclusion that the said sale deed is valid, then plaintiff establishes right, title and interest in or over suit schedule property on the basis of continuous possession of her husband and herself in the suit schedule property by la