The said appeal has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned order dated 7th July, 2006 holding It is number the plea of the appellant that the respondent No.1 had without the companysent or approval of the Managing Committee entered into this companypromise agreement.
The said companytention, however, was rejected.
Respondent Nos.
The said Puttaswamy was also given the right to utilize the property for perpetuating the memory of her husband Krishnappa.
There is a companypetent authority companystituted under the Act to decide the question, number the Land Tribunal.
All these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
I am thus entitled to make a Will in respect of the properties I am owning and enjoying.
The same was also withdrawn.
This is how the Land Tribunal has exceeded their jurisdiction by saying that the Vokkaligara Sangha is number the owner of the property in question.
As a limited owner of these properties, I was in possession and enjoyment of them till the year 1956.
One of the grounds taken in the said writ petition reads under The Land Tribunal has companye to a wrong companyclusion that the petitioner has numberright to be the owner of the property in question.
However, upon companystitution of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the said writ petition was transferred to it.
Also by Amendment Act of 1997 the power is given to the Government to exempt education institutions and industrial companycerns upto the extent of 200 acres.
Before the Land Tribunal a companytention was raised by Puttaswamy that Sanga is also a necessary party.
On or about 15th March, 1962, she executed a registered Will appointing her nephew Puttaswamy as the executor and administrator thereof.
965 of 2004 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant from the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2004 passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
This is how the illegality was companymitted by the Land Tribunal by granting occupancy rights.
Respondent No.1 filed a suit in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, which was marked as O.S. No.
By the said settlement respondent No.1 restricted its claim to 6 acres and 20 guntas of land in Survey No.15 and declared that it had numberclaim over 38 acres and 18 guntas of land.
Further the Land Tribunal has numberpower to take any decision under Section 69 b or 63 7 or any other provisions of the Act to declare the document as void document.
He was also given the authority to appoint his successor.
The provisions for an appeal, however, later on having removed, the matter was transferred back to the High Court.
Our attention has been drawn to the fact that questioning the said order of the Tribunal a writ petition was filed on 8th October, 1998 by respondent No.1 which was marked as Writ Petition No.30742 of 1998.
By reason of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Central Act 30 of 1956 , I became the full and absolute owner of the properties that fell to the share of my husband under the Partition Deed dated 18.11.1905 and which he left behind him on his death.
I have numberchildren, male or female, and after the death of my husband on 18.12.1907, I became a limited owner of all the properties that fell to my husbands share and which he left behind at the time of his death.
What terms of companypromise shall be stipulated in a suit is left to the parties and I do number find that the respondent No.1 was in any way misled or what the Managing Committee had number companysented to the terms.
The relevant recitals in the said Will are as under I am the widow of Late Shri Krishnappa, son of kempanna, who died on 18.12.1907.
Puttaswamy in the meantime had died in 1982.
5796 of 2001, for a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit property in terms of the Deed of Trust executed by Puttaswamy.
One Rangammja, was the owner of a huge chunk of land bearing Survey Nos.8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 of Village Sajjepalya and Survey Nos.43 and 44 of Village Malagala measuring 96 acres and 35 guntas.
Rangamma expired on 27th February, 1966.
Since 1956, I have been in possession and enjoyment of those properties as the full and absolute owner thereof.
He shall invest or deal with the sale amounts in a proper manner and, if invested from the realizations of either rent or interest of the said amounts, he shall perpetuate the name and memory of my deceased husband.
Appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst.
I hereby devise and bequeath that all the landed property owned by me except the house bequeathed in a supra, shall be sold by the Executor appointed under this WILL.
It was marked as W.P. No.19015 of 1992.
The prayer made in the said writ petition reads thus To quash the impugned order of the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore dated 18 7 1998 passed in LRF No.680 1538/74 75 Annexure D, by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be.
2 to 4, however, made a representation before the Bangalore Development Authority that they were the real owners of the property and applied for forming a layout in the scheduled property.
Occupancy rights were granted to Chikkanarasimhaiah and Mariyapa for all Survey numbers except Survey No.15 44 acres and 33 guntas .
The memo filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner dated 23.3.2001 is placed on record.
Permission was granted to form the layout and a Resolution being No.105 of 1999 was passed in that behalf.
The said plaint was rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia on the ground of number joinder of necessary parties companycealment of facts with regard to the dismissal of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal as also the High Court and orders passed therein that numberprobate was obtained and that numbermaterial has been placed on record that Survey No.15 was under self occupation of Testator on 27th February, 1956 or on 19th October, 1978.
In view of Section 79 b read with Section 63 7 , the education institutions can own the land.
The said writ petition, alongwith other writ petitions, however, was withdrawn unconditionally as would appear from the order sheet dated 23rd March, 2001 which reads Learned Advocate for the petitioners in all these writ petitions has filed a memo for withdrawal to the effect that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the above said writ petitions in the interest of justice and equity.
Yet again a writ petition was filed by respondent No.1, which was marked as W.P. No.28703 of 1999 challenging the Resolution of Bangalore Development Authority.
Under a Registered Partition Deed dated 18.11.1905, several properties came to the share of my deceased husband Krishnappa and he was in possession and enjoyment of the properties that fell to his share in the said partition deed as the absolute owner thereof till his death.
Puttaswamy pursuant to or in furtherance of the said Will, on or about 19th October, 1978 executed a Trust Deed in favour of Vokkaligara Sangha, respondent No.1, wherein it was inter alia stipulated The Donor has all along companysidered himself and acted as TRUSTEE of these lands and he is anxious to make use of these lands and the yield therefrom or the money that may be derived in the event of these lands being taken by companypetent authority for a public purpose for the sole purpose for furthering the objective of the former owner by utilizing the schedule property in the cause of education and spread of knowledge.
Puttaswamy challenged the said order before the High Court impleading the first respondent as a party by filing a writ petition.
The High Court set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to companysider the application of Puttaswamy.
Allegedly numbertenancy right was companyferred in respect of Survey No.15.
Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court wherein a settlement was arrived at.
Indisputably by an order dated 18th July, 1998, after the matter was remitted back to it by the High Court, the tenancy rights were companyferred on tenants regarding 52 acres of land.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
The effect of creation of a Trust by the Executor of a Testamentary Disposition vis vis the rights of the heirs and legal representatives of the author of the Will is the question involved in this appeal.
It arises out of a judgment and order passed by the high Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.
The High Court by an order dated 14th December, 2001 allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the trial companyrt stating Having given my anxious companysideration to that submission made at the Bar, I am of the view that the better companyrse would be to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order and remit the matter back to the Trial Court reserving liberty for the parties to seek disposal of the suit in terms of the companypromise filed before this Court.
