151 of 1993 and accordingly passed a decree for possession of the suit land against the appellant in relation to the suit land.
The appellants suit for specific performance was dismissed in 2009 and the appeal filed by the appellant against the dismissal of his suit was also dismissed by the District Sessions Judge, Gagad in R.A. No.31 of 2009 on 16.04.2012.
The appellant was, however, entitled to defend his possession over the suit land by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 hereinafter referred to as T.P. Act but once his suit for specific performance stood dismissed, the protection available under Section 53 A of the T.P. Act was numberlonger available to him.
In terms of the agreement, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ to Veerbasayya towards earnest money and was, accordingly, placed in possession of the suit land by him.
So far as the appellant is companycerned, he did number file any cross appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code number filed any cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code in respondents first appeal to challenge the finding of ownership of the respondents, which was against the appellant.
In the meantime, Veerbasayya died on 06.08.1988.
Felt aggrieved of the impugned judgment decree passed by the High Court, the appellant defendant No.1 has filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
In our companysidered opinion, one of the effects of the dismissal of appellants suit appeal, which was filed for specific performance of the agreement, was that the appellant was number entitled to retain possession of the suit land.
By Judgment decree dated 25.10.2006, the High Court allowed the respondents first appeal, modified the judgment decree of the Trial Court and passed a decree for possession of the suit land against the appellant in relation to the suit land.
242/2004 in the High Court of Karnataka.
He entered into an agreement Ex P 1 on 06.11.1986 to sell the suit land to the appellant for a total companysideration of Rs.1,75,000/ .
On 14.09.1993, the respondents herein filed a suit against the appellant defendant No.1 being S. No.151/1993 in the Court of IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad for a declaration and possession in relation to the suit land.
It is essentially on these averments, the respondents claimed declaration of their title over the suit land and possession from the appellant.
Situated at Shirol Village, R.S. No.24/5, admeasuring 5 acres 02 guntas situated at Kallapur, R.S. No.35/1, admeasuring 1 acre 22 guntas and R.S. No.35/2 admeasuring 3 acres 10 guntas situated at Budihal hereinafter referred to as suit land .
After the disposal of the respondents suit, the appellant, in the year 2000, filed a suit against the respondents being O.S. No.
The Trial Court, by judgment decree 09.02.2000, dismissed the suit insofar as the relief of possession was companycerned but decreed the suit by granting a declaratory decree in respondents favour of their ownership over the suit land.
Therefore, the only question, which arose before the High Court, was as to whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit insofar as it relates to claim for possession of the suit land.
In this way, the respondents entire suit stood decreed by the High Court.
Thereafter, it was number pursued by the appellant.
It was alleged that the agreement dated 06.11.1986 executed between the parties in relation to the suit land for its sale by the respondents late father to the appellant expired long back by efflux of time inasmuch as the appellant too never took any steps to enforce the agreement while it was enforceable in law and companytinued to remain in possession of the suit land and enjoyed its usufructs to the detriment of the respondents interest in the suit land.
The appellant companytested the suit by filing the written statement.
The respondents, felt aggrieved of the judgment decree of the Trial Court dated 09.02.2000, filed first appeal being RFA No.
According to the appellant defendant No.1 , he was in lawful possession of the suit land pursuant to the agreement dated 06.11.1986 and hence the respondents are number entitled to claim a relief of declaration of their title over the suit land or even possession of the suit land from the appellant.
According to the respondents, they, being the owner of the suit land by virtue of inheritance, are entitled to claim possession of the suit land from the appellant defendant No.1 .
The appellant is defendant No.1 whereas respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.2 in a suit out of which this appeal arises.
So far as the present appeal is companycerned, it does number arise out of the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents but arises out of a suit filed by the respondents against the appellant.
153/2000 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 06.11.1986 Ex P 1 from the respondents in relation to the suit land.
The respondents being his legal representatives inherited the suit land and became its owners.
177/3A3B admeasuring 7 acres 37 guntas, R.S. No.161/2A admeasuring 12 acres 36 guntas.
Plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the legal representatives of Veerabasayya, who was the original owner of the suit land.
In other words, the Trial Court held that the respondents are the owners of the suit land but are number entitled to claim possession of the suit land.
In other words, the possession of the appellant on the suit land, after the dismissal of his suit for specific performance, became unauthorized and illegal thereby entitling the respondents to claim back the same from the appellant on the strength of their ownership.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by defendant No.1 against the final judgment and order dated 25.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.242 of 2004 whereby the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by respondent No.1 plaintiff and modified the judgment decree of the Trial Court dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.12.05 09.02.2000 passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil 172849 IST Reason Judge, Dharwad in O.S. No.
Heard Mr. Trideep Pais, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta and Mr. Shantha Kumar Mahale, learned companynsel for the respondents.
The dispute in this appeal relates to the land bearing R.S. No.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the High Court but, at the same time, modify the impugned judgment and issue directions for ensuring its companypliance by the parties to this appeal as indicated below.
The respondents father Veerabasayya was the original owner of the suit land.
It was held that the respondents are entitled to claim possession of the suit land from the appellant.
The sale deed of the suit land was to be executed within 3 months.
In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, which lie in a narrow companypass, few relevant facts need mention herein below.
