1 and 2.
Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit property on the date of suit?
Plaintiff claimed that he and his sons were living together in joint mess and shelter and he was Karta of Hindu undivided family.
Lands were alienated first to defendants 7 to 9 who subsequently alienated them to defendant number.
1 and 2.
The Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 in short the Act came into force w.e.f.
The permission was granted accordingly.
4 to 6.
Plaintiff gave his companysent for re grant of entire land in favour of the defendant number3.
What order?
582 of 1982.
Plaintiff and defendant number3 applied for re grant under the Act.
Reference was made to a proceeding before the Tribunal in which defendant number3 had filed an application for grant of occupancy right.
Per companytra, learned companynsel for the respondents submitted that the factual position highlighted by the High Court clearly goes to show that there was a mischievous attempt to deprive the alienees of the legitimate rights.
Several circumstances were highlighted to so companyclude.
The suit was filed on 24.2.1982, as according to the plaintiff, defendant number.
In companyclusion it was held that plaintiff defendant 4 to 6 are joint owners over 4/5th extent of suit land and defendant number.
No definite material was placed before it to show as to what was done on the date when the petition had been heard and orders were pronounced.
No.3 measured 5 acres 4 guntas out of which suit schedule properties 1 acre 28 guntas, according to plaintiff was under the possession and enjoyment of the Hindu undivided family.
Defendant number3 in his written statement stated that he had borrowed money and the deeds in question were hypothecation deeds and were number sale deeds.
The companyclusion of the High Court to the effect that litigations by defendant number3 were instituted as for himself, plaintiff and defendant number.
7 to 9 were number examined to companytrovert stand of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the land.
Same was directed against the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in Original Suit No.
Mother of minor defendant number.
Specific references were made to the fact that though the deeds in question were executed in 1972, for about 10 years there was numberchallenge.
No satisfactory explanation has been given by him in this regard.
1 and 2.
There is numbertruth in the submission that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for himself and other family members as the reliefs claimed make the position abundantly clear that plaintiff had claimed absolute ownership.
The relief sought for were as follows i for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ii and companysequently for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property either by themselves or through their agents or assignees or companylies iii for companyts of these proceedings, and the companyrt may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law.
1.2.1963.
The plea of strained relationship between plaintiff and defendant number3 has been taken for the first time before this Court.
The companyduct of the plaintiff and defendant number3 was highlighted.
On companysideration of evidence brought on record, the trial companyrt, inter alia, held that 1 the principles of estoppel were number applicable, 2 there was sale and numbermortgage, 3 sale on behalf of defendant number 4 to 6 was a nullity, various orders passed by the High Court in different proceedings and the Tribunal companystituted under the Act were of numberconsequence as the plaintiff was number a party, plaintiff and his sons were in lawful possession, defendant number.
1 and 2 on the other.
Kaverappa, father of plaintiff Lakshmaiah succeeded to hereditary office and also to the service inam lands and other properties belonging to his father by Govt.
The suit was filed by plaintiff and other members of the family.
The suit Sy.
1 and 2.
3 on one hand and defendant number.
On 5.5.1972 and 3.6.1972 defendant number3 applied for permission to sell 1 acre 28 guntas of land.
The suit one for declaration and injunction was filed by respondent No.1 B.K. Lakshmaiah, against his sons B.L. Ganesh defendant number3, B.L. Sudhakar defendant number4, B.L. Babu defendant number5 and B.L. Sreedhar defendant number6, and defendant number.1 and 2, 7 to 9 who were alienees of certain properties which were aliented by defendant number3.
By the impugned judgment, High Court found that the rule of estoppel and logic of res judicata were applicable to the facts of the case.
On such adjudication, the claim of defendant number3 was rejected.
On 23.10.1072 defendant number3 sold lands in favour of defendant number.
The sale deeds exhibits D11 and D12 were executed by defendant number 3 and defendant number.
It would be hard to believe that plaintiff had numberknowledge of the proceedings though he was living jointly with defendant number 3 and his other children.
To meet the ends of justice, High Court quashed order passed by the Tribunal and directed further inquiry and further directed to render a decision in accordance with law.
He died in 1959, and plaintiff succeeded to the Village Office as well as to the properties.
1 and 2 starting dispossessing to the plaintiff.
There was series of litigations between defendant number.
Notice issued for the purpose was quashed by the High Court in W.P. No.19578/79 by order dated 19.8.1980.
4 to 6 acted as legal guardian.
Evidence tendered by DWs 3 and 4 about possession of defendants 1 and 2 were number sufficient to overrule evidence of PWs 1 to 3, since possession follows title and plaintiff was in lawful possession over the suit land.
High Court has lost sight of the fact that because of defendant number3s wayward companyduct relationship with him had turned sour and practically there was numberconnection between the plaintiff and other members of his family and defendant number3.
He companyceded plaintiffs prayer for decree in terms of the reliefs sought for.
1 and 2 and defendant number.
On re grant the benefit enures to the entire family.
So far as the then minor sons claims are companycerned, it was held that they are barred by time, having number been presented within the specified time after attaining majority.
Further, the companyclusion that plaintiff was number entitled to specific relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in short Specific Relief Act he having number companye to companyrt with clean hands has numberfoundation or basis.
As numbered above, the decision of the trial companyrt was assailed in First Appeal before the High Court.
The trial companyrt framed several issues which are as follows Whether the plaintiff proves that S.No.3 situated in Bommanahalli was regranted by the Assistant Commissioner to the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant on behalf of the joint family of the plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 8?
Written statement was filed by defendant number.
4 to 6 is again based on surmises.
Defendant number.
Without going in detail, as to whether plaintiff had participated in the proceeding at the time of hearing, it was thought proper to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
Section 5 3 of the Act prohibits transfer, alienation of the land, except by partition, for a period of 15 years, without previous companysent of the Deputy Commissioner.
It has also number explained as to why defendant number 3 had filed the application claiming occupancy rights, and when on the date of suit, defendant number.
Under Section 4 of the Act the lands were resumed though there was a provision for re grant to a holder of the village office under Section 5.
High Court has rightly came to the companyclusion that plaintiff was estoppel from raising the pleas.
1 and 2 claimed ownership on the land, they were duly numberified and after hearing both sides.
Undisputedly, the Tribunal re heard the matter and held against the defendant No.
grant.
3 and 4 were admittedly majors they were number added as plaintiffs.
In November, 1979 Tahsildar had initiated proceedings for resumption of land on the ground of alienation without permission.
Tribunal allowed claim of defendant number3.
1 and 2 have a right to seek partition of 1/5 share of defendant number3, and injunction was granted against defendant number.
High Court in writ petition No.4430 of 1978 referred to orders of the Tribunal and came to hold that on the date of hearing plaintiff was withdrawn from the proceedings.
1 and 2 who pleaded estoppel and also specifically pleaded that defendant number3 was companypetent to sell the lands in question.
7 to 9 who on the same date sold the land to defendant number.
Attempts before the High Court did number bring any result.
Plea of the plaintiff that he was unaware of the proceedings was number accepted in view of the fact that according to his own showing he was staying jointly with defendant number3.
Some lands were sold by the plaintiff, which were companytended to be for the benefit of the family.
High Court numbericed that the decision of the Land Tribunal was vitiated because plaintiff was a member of the Tribunal.
In the plaint though reference was made to the property as jointly family property, the reliefs claimed for, show that plaintiff sought for declaration that he was the absolute owner of the property.
The factual background highlighted by the High Court to hold about its applicability is as follows.
He had participated in the proceedings in question though he had retired in the middle.
It repealed the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908 which provided for hereditary office.
By order dated 4.5.1972, the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore passed an order re granting the land.
There was numberplea to this effect in the suit, and number even before the High Court.
The inferential companyclusions of the High Court about the plaintiffs role in various proceedings are companytrary to material on record.
In support of the appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendant number3, the main plea is the principle of estoppel and res judicata are number applicable.
Whether the defendants 1 and 2 prove that the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the sale transaction under the sale deed for the reasons stated in para 7 of their written statement?
It was brought to the numberice of the High Court when challenge was made to the order of the Tribunal, that plaintiff was one of the members of the Tribunal.
Same logic would apply to the land sold by the defendant number3.
In all these proceedings the adjudication was adverse to defendant number3.
It was submitted that the suit was on behalf of joint family.
From the material on record it is clear that there was series of litigations to which reference has been made by the High Court where the companytesting parties were defendant number3 and defendant number.
It companyld number be explained by learned companynsel for the appellant, as to how in the reliefs sought, that is, absolute ownership, the dispute companyld be treated to be one on behalf of the joint family.
A writ petition and writ appeal filed before the High Court in respect thereto were unsuccessful.
The Tribunal cannot be said to have number been influenced to some extent at least by his presence.
JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, which was rendered in a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
The factual background needs to be numbered in detail Plaintiff had two wives, 9 sons, 4 daughters and in addition, two pre deceased daughter and son.
The defendants 3 to 6 were sons through the first wife, while three sons and one daughter through the second wife were number parties to the suit.
According to the plaintiff, Bovi Googa Bingooba son of Munia was the original Barawardar, Thoti of Bommanahalli Village had service inam lands assigned to his hereditary office as an emolument in companysideration of the services.
