A Regular Second Appeal filed by defendants 4and 5 before the High Court of Karnataka against the decree of the Civil Judges Court affirming the decree of the Munsiffs Court, was dismissed in limine.
If that be so, defendant 1 had to be regarded as having sold in favour of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 under sale deed dated 31st March, 1969 only his 1/4th undivided interest in the disputed lands and number.
His claim for partition and separate possession of his share in the disputed lands was based on the plea that the sale deed dated 31st March, 1969 by which defendant 1, his eldest brother, had sold the disputed lands joint family lands in favour of the tenants, without the prior companysent of his brothers and for numberlegal necessity of the family, was void ab initio.
1 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation Act.
That was a suit for partition of 1/4th share in the disputed lands and putting him ink separate possession of that share.
The impleaded in that suit appellants 1 and 2 as defendants 4 and 5, since they were in possession of the disputed lands.
From this, it following that the lease hold interests of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 in the disputed lands and lessors entire reversion companyld number have merged in one and some person.
The tenancy of the disputed lands had since been regulated by the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948 the BT Al, Act from the time Bassppa Bheemappa as their Watandar, had leased them in favour of appellant 1 and father of appellant 2 in the year 1950, the regrant of the disputed lands in favour of Basappa Bheemappa under the Watan Abolition Act, did number entitle him to obtain possession of them except under the BT AL, Act.
In that appeal, the Court of the Civil Judge, held that the sale deed date 3 1st March, 1969 by which defendants had sold the disputed lands, was void because of the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation Act, prohibiting such sale and this situation itself enabled the plaintiff to ignore the sale effected by defendant 1 and claim his share in the disputed lands.
But, on 8th December, 1976, the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff at Kundogol against his eldest brother, Basappa Beemappa the seller of the disputed lands and two other brothers arraying them as defendants 1 to 3.
Basappa Bheemappa, who was the Watandar of the disputed lands, leased them in the year 1950 in favour of appellant 1 and father of appellant 2, for their personal cultivation.
Savannah, as by then, Dharwad District where the disputed lands were located, had companye to Karnataka State from Bombay State by reason of the reorganisation of States under the States Reorganisation Act 1956.
Thereafter, by his Order dated 30th November, 1968, the Deputy Commissioner of Dharwad District made the regrant of disputed lands resumed Watan lands in favour of their former Watandar, Basappa Bheemappa.
Defendants 1, 4 and 5, resisted the plaintiffs claim for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the disputed lands urging, inter alia, that he had numberright to get any share in them.
The Court of Munsiff the Trial Court and the Court of Civil Judge the First Appellant Court, have recorded a companycurrent finding that the sale by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 of the disputed lands by registered sale deed dated 3 1 st March, 1969, was void ab initio that being a sale prohibited under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation Act.
The other finding of the Courts below is, that the sale deed dated 31st March, 1969 was void because defendant 1 companyld number have sold the undivided interest of his brothers the plaintiff respondent here and defendants 2 and 3 in the disputed lands, being their joint family properties, without their companysent and without the legal necessity of the family.
After trial of the suit, the Munsiff Court ranted a decree in favour of the respondent.
That decree of the Munsiff Court was based on its findings i that the disputed lands were Hindu joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 ii that the sale of the disputed lands in favour of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 had since been made by defendant 1 without the companysent of his brothers, the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and without legal necessity of the family, the same was void ab initio iii that the plea of defendants 1, 4 and 5 that the tenancy revived, if the sale by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 was found to be v. d, was unacceptable, and iv that the sale by defendant in favour of defendant 4 and father of defendant 5 of the disputed lands was also void since sale of them Fragments was prohibited under the provision.
However, defendants 4 and 5 challenged the companyrectness of the decree of the Munsiff Court, by filing an appeal before the Court of the Civil Judge at Hubli.
D. Bajaj, and P. Mahale for the Appellants.
However, the said Basappa Bheemappa sold the disputed lands in favour of their tenants the appellant 1 and father of appellant 2 on 3 1st March, 1969 under a registered sale deed.
24/2A and Survey No.
The land Tribunal under the KLR Act, before which the appellants sought registration of their occupancy rights in the disputed lands, found it unnecessary to so register them because of its view that the disputed lands had been sold to them by the landlord regrade, Basappa Bheemappa.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.1992 of the Karnataka High Court in R.S.A. No.
Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3/4th of the undivided interest of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and That means that the lessors entire interest or entire reversion in the disputed lands cannot be regarded as having been sold under the sale deed of 31st March, 1969.
But, there was a right companyferred under the Watan Act on every Watandar the holder of the Watan land, to obtain its regrant subject to payment of occupancy price.
Although, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 the KLR Act which came into force in Karnataka on 2.10.1965, repealed by its section 141 the Watan Abolition Act and by its section 143 the BT A L Act, 1948, numberhing thereunder adversely affected the rights of the appellants tenancy in the disputed lands.
With the companying into force on 25th January, 1951 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act, 1950, known s the Watan Abolition Act, all the Watans were resumed by the State of Bombay resulting in extinguishment of all the rights held by Watandars in such Watans.
34/2B of Kubihal Village in Kundgol Taluk of Dharwad District.
2854 of 1993.
An extent of 4 acres and another extent of 6 acres 26 guntas are agricultural lands companyprised in Survey No.
They are the disputed lands in this appeal.
After the resumption of the disputed lands by the State of Bombay under the Watan Abolition Act, Basappa Bheemappa, claiming to be their former holder applied for the irregrant before the Assistant Commissioner.
It is those decrees which are impugnned by defendants 4 and 5 in the present appeal by Special Leave.
534 of 1990.
we are finally deciding it.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. We grant Special Leave.
Ms. Kiran Suri for the Respondent.
Since we heard learned companynsel for parties on the merits of the appeal.
The disputed lands were Watans appertaining to hereditary village offices under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 known as Watan Act.
