The lower Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 05.01.2008.
The review petition preferred by the present appellant was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 1.06.2011.
The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 12.02.2007 accepted the claim of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.
Original Suit No.19 of 2004 was filed by the present appellant, being the successor in interest of Nadumpalli Muneppa i.e. the alienee in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division Srinivaspuri, District Kolar.
The aforesaid decision of the Trial Court was challenged before the Principal District Judge Kolar in Regular Appeal No.163 of 2007.
It was observed by the High Court that the alienee having been evicted from the land on 24.09.1981, as on the date when re grant was ordered, the possession was number that of the alienee and as such the companyrts below were number justified in relying upon the decisions of the High Court Lakshmana Gowda and Syed Bhasheer Ahamed case.
Those proceedings attained finality and became companyclusive.
This was challenged in appeal and the matter stood remitted to the Tehsildar to pass fresh orders.
The suit was decreed declaring the plaintiff to be absolute owner.
The respondents carried the matter further by filing Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 27.07.2010.
The re grant in favour of those two others was challenged by Muni Papanna which challenge was allowed and the re grant was companyfirmed in favour of Muni Papanna alone.
Uday Umesh Lalit J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, fresh re grant proceedings were taken up and the land was re granted in favour of said Muni Papanna and two others.
All the defendants filed companymon written statement.
These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 in Regular Second Appeal No.323 of 2008 and order dated 1.06.2011 passed in P. No.476 of 2010 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
Relying on the decisions in Lakshmana Gowda and Syed Bhasheer Ahamed it was observed that the alienation between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 was number invalid and that the land having been re granted in favour of Muni Papanna, the alienee can certainly claim the benefit by doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel in view of the re grant of land in favour of the alienor holder of the office under Section 5 1 or 6 of the Act and the subsequent sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos.5 and 6 would therefore be of numberlegal companysequence.
