2, 3 and 4 and defendant No.
17 Society felt aggrieved of certain findings about the ownership status of the plaintiff in the suit land and accordingly filed four separate first appeals in the High Court at Bangalore.
Shah Veljee Kanjee died on 02.12.1957 leaving behind his widow Gunwantibai, two major daughters and four minor sons.
So far as the merits of the claim is companycerned, appellant No.1 defendant No.18 denied the plaintiffs title over the suit land and averred inter alia that the original holders of the suit land three PATIL with whom they entered into an agreement to purchase the suit land were having subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land by virtue of two re grant orders 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 made by the State in their favour under the KVA Act of 1961 on the application of the original holders three PATIL and, therefore, the original holders three PATIL were companypetent to enter into an agreement to transfer the suit land in their favour on 23.03.2001.
1 and 2 against the appellants and remaining respondents No.3 to 34 herein out of which these appeals arise.
18 on several grounds such as, firstly, the suit is number maintainable because proper reliefs were number claimed by the plaintiff Second, the suit property is number properly valued Third, the plaint is insufficiently stamped Fourth, the suit is barred by limitation.
The suit was mainly companytested by appellant No.1 herein i.e. the Builder defendant No.
18 to 25 who are builder, firm and its partners have felt aggrieved and filed the present appeals by way of special leave petitions in this Court.
It was held that the sale made by the mother and two sisters of the plaintiff in favour of the Society is illegal and thus is number binding on the plaintiff to the extent of his 5/8th share in the suit land.
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and accordingly modified the finding of the Trial Court as regards the status and the ownership rights of the plaintiff in the suit land and held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and is, therefore, entitled to claim his 1/5th share in the suit land along with defendants, who are legal representatives of late Shah Veljee Kanjee like the plaintiff.
On 19.12.1957, the widow and 2 major daughters of late Shah Veljee Kanjee sold the suit land to one Gadag Co operative Cotton Sales Society Ltd. defendant No.
In the year 2004, the original owners three PATIL claiming their ownership rights over the suit land filed two civil suits being O.S. Nos.364 365 of 2004 against the legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee and the Society.
17 hereinafter referred to as the Society .
On 14.05.1943, Shah Veljee Kanjee purchased another parcel of land bearing CTS No.366 by direct sale purchase.
By inheritance, the legal representatives stepped into his shoes and became the joint owners of the suit land.
It was also averred that whatever ownership rights in the suit land which the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 were possessing in their favour stood extinguished on account of the two re grant orders dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 made by the State in favour of the original holders three PATIL and, therefore, in the light of these subsequent events which came into existence, numberdecree can number be passed in favour of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 in relation to the suit land for any relief on the strength of their title.
366 3 acres 20 guntas to one Chaturbhuj Ratansi for a period of 50 years whereas the land bearing CTS No.
On 23.10.1915, three PATIL leased out land bearing CTS No.
The plaintiff, the legal representatives of defendant Nos.
In 1942, land bearing CTS No.361 was sold in Court Auction proceedings and one person by name Shah Veljee Kanjee purchased the said land being the highest bidder.
It is basically with the aforementioned background facts, one son of Shah Veljee Kanjee respondent No.1 herein since dead and represented by his legal representatives son daughter as respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed civil suit S.No.37/2010 on 23.02.2010 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Sr.
1 to 4 in the present suit out of which these appeals arise felt aggrieved by the sale dated 19.12.1957 made by their mother and two sisters in favour of the Society and accordingly filed civil suit being O.S. No.9/1969 praying therein for a declaration that the sale made by their mother and two sisters is bad in law and void to the extent of plaintiffs share 5/8 th in the suit land.
Senior Civil Judge, Hubli decreed the plaintiffs suit in part and passed the preliminary decree of partition and separate possession in relation to the suit land in plaintiffs favour as prayed in the suit.
However, at this stage, it is number necessary to give details of this litigation and its development.
Division in plaintiffs favour became final.
18 to 25 who are builder, firm and its partners whereas respondent Nos.
These dismissals were binding on the original holder three PATIL .
Similarly some subsequent developments in relation to the suit land companyferring some rights by the State on the parties also took place.
In order to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the background facts, which led to filing of the suit by the predecessor in title of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and number represented by respondent Nos.
The son of late Shah Veljee Kanjee, who is plaintiff since dead and defendant Nos.
1 and 2.
361 1 acre 25 guntas was permanently leased out to one Kanjee Ghelabhai Shet alias Gujjar on 09.03.1920.
The two dismissals attained finality because the three PATIL did number pursue the matter further in appeals to the higher Courts.
The suit land was a watan property under the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act hereinafter referred to as the MHO Act and on its repeal in 1961, was governed by the Karnataka Village Abolition Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the KVA Act .
As mentioned above, the appellants herein are the builder, firm and its partners.
The suit land originally belonged to three persons namely, Marigouda Patil, Basangouda Patil and Adveppagouda Patil hereinafter referred to as three PATIL .
3 to 34 are proforma defendants in a civil suit O.S. No.37/2010 out of which these appeals arise.
It is against this judgment of the High Court, the appellants herein defendant Nos.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench disposed of all the four appeals.
The appellants herein are defendant Nos.
The companytest in these appeals is essentially among the appellants and respondent Nos.
In other words, the Society lost the legal battle throughout up to this Court and resultantly, the decree dated 26.08.1977 passed by the Principal Civil Judge Sr.
They claimed to have entered into an agreement with the original owners three PATIL on 23.03.2001 for purchase of the suit land on certain terms and companyditions.
These dismissal attained finality regardless of the fact as to on what grounds they suffered dismissal.
20/1/ 20/2 admeasuring 3 Acres 20 Guntas and 1 Acre 25 Guntas respectively situated at Kusugal Road, Keshwapur, Hubli described in detail in the schedule to the plaint hereinafter referred to as the suit land .
This decree was challenged by the purchaser Society in the High Court and later in this Court but was number successful.
The Additional Senior Civil Judge answered almost all the issues in plaintiffs favour and held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the leasehold right in respect of the suit scheduled property and so also defendant Nos.
Division in plaintiffs favour.
The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/5 th share in the suit land and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the two intending buyers purchasers of the suit land from interfering in plaintiffs possession over the suit land.
In substance, the plaintiff respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein had claimed the aforementioned reliefs on the basis of his title over the suit land which, according to him, was already adjudicated and recognized in his favour by the Civil Court vide judgment dated 26.08.1977 passed in O.S. No.9/1969 and it remains upheld up to this Court.
364 and 365 of 2004 in relation to the suit land asserting therein their ownership rights over the suit land against the present plaintiff and other members of Shah Veljee Kanjee but both the suits were dismissed by the Civil Court on 23.11.2004.
This suit was, however, decreed on 26.08.1977 by the Principal Civil Judge Sr.
1 a to c , 2 and 4 are companycerned, they filed their companynter claim and admitted the claim set up by the plaintiff in the suit.
So far as the present appellants are companycerned, they did number prefer any appeal as they seemed to be satisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court.
By judgment decree dated 07.11.2014, the III Addl.
The Civil Court dismissed both these civil suits as barred by time vide judgment dated 29.01.2007.
During interregnum period, there were several rounds of litigation in civil, revenue and rent companyrts among the parties and their representatives.
361 and 366 of CTS Ward No.1 originally bearing RS Nos.
The same will be referred to at a later stage while dealing with these submissions.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
In execution of this decree, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 4, who are the legal representatives of late Shah Veljee Kanjee, were accordingly placed in joint possession of their shares in the suit land.
Division at Hubli out of which these appeals arise against 27 defendants which included the members of Shah Veljee Kanjee family, their legal heirs, legal representatives of original holders three PATIL and two intending purchasers buyers of the suit land, namely, Society and the other, M s Eureka builders a firm and their partners appellants herein .
So far as other family members of Shah Veljee Kanjee defendant Nos.
1 and 2 are the legal representatives of original plaintiff and respondent Nos.
These appeals arise from the companymon final judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in R.F.A. Nos.100017 of 2015, 100018 of 2015, 100016 of 2015 and 100099 of 2015, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.05.03 165129 IST Reason appeals by allowing the plaintiffs appeal and accordingly modified the finding of the Trial Court as regards the status and the ownership rights of the plaintiff in the suit land and held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and is, therefore, entitled to claim his 1/5th share in it along with defendants Nos.1 to 4, who are legal representatives of late Shah Veljee Kanjee.
The dispute relates to a land bearing CTS Nos.
Issues were framed and parties adduced their evidence.
1 a to c , 2 and 4 are entitled to claim their 1/5 th share each in leasehold rights in respect of the suit land along with the plaintiff.
The mother, two sisters and the Society companytested the suit as defendants.
