Bangalore District Court
K.Kushalraj vs Nanjappa on 18 February, 2020
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P 67
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU
(CCH-20)
Present:
Sri.D.S.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B.,
XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2020.
O.S.No.25870/2011
Plaintiffs:- 1. K.Kushalraj,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o Late G Nemichand
2. N.Pavan Kumar,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Late G.Nemichand,
3. I.Kundan,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o Inderchand
All are r/a No.16,
Maigundadeva Mudaliar
Road, Fraser Town,
Bangalore-560 005.
[By Sri.G.S.P.K-Advocate]
2 OS No.25870/2011
Vs.
Defendants:- 1. Nanjappa,
Aged about 68 years,
S/o Muniyappa,
2. Chikkamuniyappa,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Late Ramaiah,
3. H.Krishnappa,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Late Hanumanthappa
4. H.Venkatesha
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Late Hanumanthappa
5. Anji,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Late Hanumanthappa,
6. Venkatappa,
Aged about 65 years,
S/o Late Hanumanthappa,
7. N.Ganesha,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Late Nanjundappa,
8. N.Muniraju,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Late Nanjundappa,
9. N.Manjunatha
Aged about 36 years,
3 OS No.25870/2011
S/o Late Nanjundappa,
10. N.Chandrappa,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Late Nanjundappa,
11. N.Srinivas,
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Late Nanjundappa,
12. N.Marappa,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Late Nanjundappa,
13. N.Dhanaraj,
Aged about 19 years,
S/o Late Nanjundappa,
14. N.Nethravathi,
Aged about 24 years,
D/o Late Nanjundappa,
15. N.Premavathi,
Aged about 21 years,
D/o Late Nanjundappa,
16. Narasimha,
Aged about 33 years,
S/o Late Muniyappa,
17. Bylamma,
Aged about 36 years,
D/o Late Muniyappa,
18. Bhagya,
Aged about 22 years,
D/o Late Muniyappa,
4 OS No.25870/2011
[D1,4,6 & 9: Abated; D.5: By
Sri.G.B-Advocate; D.2,3,7, 8,
10 to 18: By Sri.MGC-
Advocate]
Date of Institution of suit: 23.04.2011
Nature of the Suit (Suit for
Pronote, Suit for
Declaration and Injunction
Possession, Suit for
Injunction, etc.):
Date of Commencement
of recording of evidence: 19.07.2019
Date on which the
Judgment was 18.02.2020
pronounced:
Total Duration:
Years Months Days
08 09 25
(D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR)
XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge
Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
5 OS No.25870/2011
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs 1 to 3 have filed this suit against defendants 1 to 18 for the relief of Permanent Injunction to restrain them, their agents or anybody representing them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property and also from alienating the suit properties and for costs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case as per the plaint are as below:-
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have purchased the suit 'A' schedule property which is site bearing No.127 House List No.283 Assessment No.38 Katha No.798/1 formed in Survey Number-38 of Lingarajapura village, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East-West : 65 feet North-South :65 6 OS No.25870/2011 feet, consisting of one sq. AC sheet roofed house constructed with mud and bricks. Previous owner namely Hanumanthappa and Nanjundappa executed irrevocable Power of Attorney coupled with interest on 18.11.1986 in favour of one G.Utham Chand with respect to the suit 'A' schedule property and the GPA holder in turn executed a Registered Sale Deed dtd.29.4.2006 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and sold said property and put them in possession.
Katha of the suit 'A' schedule property is also made out in the name of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and plaintiff no.2 has instituted a suit in OS No.10320/1997 against one Ritamma and others for the relief of Permanent Injunction and the same has been granted. The 3rd plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of suit 'B' schedule property bearing old site no.68, and a portion of 7 OS No.25870/2011 site no.67 now bearing New No.6, PID No.87.43.6, 12th cross. Sadashiva Temple Road, Lingarajapura, BBMP Ward No.87, Bangalore, measuring East-
West :40 North-South : 44 feet. Suit 'B' schedule property was also purchased under a registered Sale Agreement dated 17.01.1983 by the first plaintiff and also a consideration receipt was executed and subsequently an irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 27.03.1985 was executed in his favour. Thereafter, first plaintiff sold the suit 'B' schedule property in favour of 3rd plaintiff under Registered Sale Deed dtd 10.5.2007 and eversince 3rd plaintiff is in possession of the suit 'B' schedule property. Defendants claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Hanumanthappa and Nanjundappa, started interfering with the possession of suit schedule properties. Defendants also filed a false suit in OS 8 OS No.25870/2011 No.25263/2008 for declaration with respect to suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Plaintiffs who were arrayed as defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the said suit entered appearance and filed their written-
statement and also IA under Order-7 Rule-11 of the CPC for rejecting the plaint. There was an interim ex-parte order not to alienate the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. But, when the suit was pending for consideration of IAs, defendants herein filed an application without serving the notice of the same to the plaintiffs and withdrew the suit as not pressed on 23.03.2011. But, thereafter defendants approached the police and plaintiffs were summoned and enquired. On 21.04.2011 defendants came near the suit schedule properties and interfered with the possession of 9 OS No.25870/2011 the suit schedule properties. Hence, plaintiffs have filed this suit.
3. Suit has been abated against defendant Nos.1, 4, 6 and 9. Remaining defendants have entered appearance by engaging counsel, and among them defendant no.7 has filed written- statement contesting the suit and a memo has been filed on behalf of defendant nos. 8, 10 to 18 adopting the written-statement of defendant no.7 on their behalf.
As per the said written-statement, defendants above have denied the plaintiffs case that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are co-owners having possession of the suit schedule 'A' property and deceased Hanumanthappa and Nanjundappa have executed irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of G.Utham chand on 18.11.1986 and said 10 OS No.25870/2011 General Power of Attorney holder has executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 in respect of suit 'A' schedule property and also plaintiff no.1 had entered into a Registered Sale Agreement Dated 17.01.1983 with the deceased Hanumnthappa and Nanjundappa and irrevocable Power of Attorney, coupled with interest dated 27.03.1985 had been executed in his favour in respect of the suit 'B' schedule property and in turn plaintiff no.1 sold the suit 'B' schedule property in favour of third plaintiff under a Registered Sale Deed dtd. 10.5.2007 and thus 3rd plaintiff is in possession of the suit 'B' schedule property. That the deceased Hanumanthappa and Nanjundappa belonged to Thoti Talvar caste coming under the Scheduled Caste and an extent of 5 Acres 10 guntas in land bearing Survey Number-38 was re-granted to 11 OS No.25870/2011 them and therefore said land is covered under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. The defendants are legal heirs of the deceased Nanjundappa and Hanumthappa. As the deceased Hanumnthappa and Nanjundappa belonged to Scheduled caste, purchase of the suit properties is contrary to the provisions of PTCL Act. No approved plans are obtained for forming layout in the said land. Under the alleged irrevocable power of attorney, Registered Sale Agreement and Sale Deeds plaintiffs have not obtained any title and the same are unenforceable. After coming to know that plaintiffs have created documents in respect of suit schedule 'A' ad 'B' schedule properties, defendant filed a complaint before Banasawadi Police station and FIR in Crime 12 OS No.25870/2011 No.124/2011 was registered. Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief sought for in the suit. Thus, they have sought for dismissing the suit with exemplary costs.
4. In support of the suit claim, on behalf of Plaintiffs, first plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 25 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.24. On behalf of defendants, 7th defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.D.1 to D.10.
5. Heard Arguments.
6. Learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that entire case of the plaintiffs is specifically admitted by DW.1 in his evidence. Therefore, plaintiffs have proved their case by way of admissions elicited in the cross examination of DW.1 and have thereby proved their possession 13 OS No.25870/2011 of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit. DW.1 has categorically admitted that the katha of the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of plaintiffs and plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties. Suit is filed for bare injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of suit schedule properties and from alienating the suit schedule properties. Defendants have initiated proceedings under PTCL Act, they have to work out their remedy in the said proceedings. They had filed a suit for declaration of title but they have withdrawn the same. Since the plaintiffs possession is admitted, plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought for in the suit. Thus, plaintiffs counsel argues that a decree for Permanent Injunction should be granted as sought for in favour of plaintiffs. 14 OS No.25870/2011
7. Learned counsel for defendant nos.7, 8, 10 to 18 argued that suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable. There is cloud cast over the plaintiffs title to the suit property. That the relief of injunction is an extraordinary remedy and plaintiffs have to establish their case without depending on the weakness in defendants case. When the Sale Deed was got registered on the basis of General Power of Attorney, original owners/principals had died and the GPA has no mention about passing of consideration. Therefore, sale deeds are void abinitio. Otherwise also, sale transaction are hit by the provisions of PTCL Act. The defendants have produced re-grant certificate as per Ex.D.1 and as the grantees of the land belonging to Scheduled caste community, plaintiffs have not 15 OS No.25870/2011 acquired any title to the suit property. PW.1 has admitted that there is no approved layout plan in respect of the land bearing Survey Number-38 and also that they have not obtained permission from the competent authority before purchasing the suit schedule properties. But, admittedly as per Ex.D.1 re-grant Certificate there is a condition of non alienation without permission from competent authority. General Power of Attorney holder has not been examined before the court and the defendants have disputed the alleged General Power of Attorney by the deceased Hanumanthppa and Nanjundappa. Even a criminal case has been filed against PW.1, but police have filed 'C' Report stating that they were unable to secure documents. As per the decision of Apex court in the case of Ananthalu Vs. Buchi Reddy, suit filed 16 OS No.25870/2011 for bare Injunction without seeking declaration of title when there is serious dispute about the title, is not maintainable. Thus on the said grounds, defendants counsel argues that the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
8. Following Issues and issues have been framed in the case:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they were is in lawful possession of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants attempted to interfere with their possession of the suit property?17 OS No.25870/2011
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed in the suit?
4. What order or order?
9. For the reasons stated in the subsequent paragraphs, I answer above Issues as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1 :- In the negative ISSUE NO.2 :- In the negative ISSUE NO.3 :- In the negative ISSUE NO.4 :- As per final Order for the following:-
REASONS
10. ISSUE No.1:- On behalf of plaintiffs, first plaintiff has testified as PW.1 to support the suit claim. At issue herein is the Plaintiffs possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit. Plaintiffs have not sought the relief of declaration of title and hence, main question 18 OS No.25870/2011 which is to be determined is whether the plaintiffs prove their possession of suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit i.e, possession of suit 'A' schedule property by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and possession of 'B' schedule property by plaintiff no.3. Plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.1 Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006, Ex.P.5 General Power of Attorney dated 18.11.1986, EX.P.15-General Power of Attorney dated 27.03.1985, Ex.P.16 Registered Agreement of Sale dated 17.1.1983 along with katha Certificate, Encumbrance Certificates and pleadings pertaining to the suit which had been filed by the defendants for declaration of title and also order sheet therein. Since, there is no issue framed for determining the title of the suit property, I am of opinion that it is not necessary to go into the same. Of-course, there is serious 19 OS No.25870/2011 challenge to the title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties.
11. Coming to the evidence pertaining to the possession of the suit properties, first plaintiff / PW.1 has reiterated during his Cross examination that they are in possession of the suit properties as per the plaint claim. He has stated that he does not know there is no approved layout plan for the land in question. He has stated that before purchasing the suit property, permission from the competent authority was not obtained, because plaintiffs were not aware of the said requirement. So far as the question of possession is concerned, there is no admission whatsoever elicited from the mouth of PW.1 about the plaintiff's not having possession of the suit property. Instead PW.1 has 20 OS No.25870/2011 reiterated that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit properties.
12. Turning to the evidence of contesting defendants, 7th Defendant has testified as DW.1. Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of order passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk thereby granting the land in question to Nanjundappa, Nanjappa, Hanumathappa and Ramaiah. Said order shows that re-grant of land was made on condition that land should not be alienated except for partition among the members of the Thoti family, without permission of the competent authority. Defendants have produced their family tree by way of affidavits as per Ex.D.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. They have produced a copy of FIR and also complaint given to the police. Further, they have produced certified copy of petition filed by defendant no.7 and two 21 OS No.25870/2011 others under Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, LND/SC/ST/ PTCL.113/2012 before the Asst. Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub Division, Bangalore as per Ex.D.5. Same shows that they have sought for declaration of the sale of property as null and void and restoration of the property.
13. So, prima facie Ex.D.1 shows that the suit land was regranted land in favour of the above named grantees who belonged to Schedule caste and there was non alienation condition .while regranting the same. Yet coming to the factum of possession of the suit land., defendant no.7/D.W.1 admits that now the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. He admits that they had previously filed a suit against plaintiffs claiming declaration of ownership but they withdrew the suit on the 22 OS No.25870/2011 advise of their counsel and then they have filed petition under PTCL Act, bearing No.SC/ST (PTCL).113/2012 as per Ex.P.25, and they have sought for restoration of possession of suit land. Evidence of D.W.1 is as follows:-
"I have seen the suit schedule A and B properties. It is true to suggest that they come under the jurisdiction of BBMP. Khatha of suit schedule A and B properties are now standing in the names of Plaintiffs. If it is suggested that the Plaintiffs have been paying taxes for suit properties to the BBMP, I say we have taken objection to the same. It is true to suggest that previously we had filed OS No.25263/2008 against the Plaintiffs claiming that we are the owners of the suit properties. We withdrew the said suit on the advise of our counsel. But we do not know the reason for withdrawing the suit. The suit has been dismissed as withdrawn.
2. It is true to suggest that we had filed land SC/ST (PTCL) No.113/2012 in respect of the suit property as per the Certified copy of petition now shown to me. It is marked as 23 OS No.25870/2011 Ex.P25. It is true to suggest that in that petition we have sought for restoration of possession. It is false to suggest that on 21.4.2011, we along with anti social elements tried to dispossess the Plaintiffs from the suit property. It is false to suggest that we have unnecessarily interfering with the Plaintiffs possession of the suit property. It is true to suggest that even now the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property".
14. From DW.1's previous admission that they have sought for the relief of restoration of possession in the petition filed as per Ex.P.25 under PTCL Act, also it is established that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. But, however, plaintiffs possession was not lawful in view of contravention of the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act and Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of 24 OS No.25870/2011 Certain Lands) Act, Consequently, Issue no.1 is answered in negative.
15. Issue Nos.2 and 3:- Now, the question is whether the plaintiffs have got cause of action for the suit and are entitled to the relief of Permanent Injunction as sought for. In this regard, in the first place, it has to be considered that the suit property is actually a re-granted land under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. Ex.D.1 clearly evidences the said fact. In EX.D.1 order of regrant passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, condition imposed regarding non-alienation is at the last para of the said order which reads as below:-
"The lands regranted should not be alienated except for partition of the same among the members of the Thoti family without permission of the Competent Authority".25 OS No.25870/2011
16. Sec.5 of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 provides that the grantee should not transfer the regranted land unless it is by partition among the members of Hindu Joint family and further covenants that any transfer of land in contravention of said condition shall be null and void and the land so transferred will be forfeited and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrance and any person in possession thereof will be summarily evicted there from by the Deputy Commissioner and it is further provided that thereafter the said land may be regranted to the legal heirs of the grantee if the grantee is not alive. Sec.5(3) and (4) of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act reads as under:-
"5. Re-grant of land resumed under section-4 to the holder of the village office.--26 OS No.25870/2011
(3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, re-granted under sub-section (1) shall not be transferable otherwise than by partition among members of Hindu Joint Family [for a period of fifteen years from the date of re-grant made on or after the date of commencement of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 2003.
Provided that such occupancy or the ryotwari patta in respect of land granted to the holder of a village office in an enfranchised inam shall be transferable with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner which shall be granted on payment of an amount equal to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land.]2
1. Substituted by Act 22 of 2003 w.e.f. 09.05.2003. 2. Inserted by Act 27 of 1984 w.e.f. 04.05.1984.
(4) Any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (3) shall be null and void and the land so transferred shall, as penalty, be forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and any person in possession thereof shall be summarily evicted therefrom by the Deputy Commissioner and 27 OS No.25870/2011 the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the law applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated lands:
Provided that if the person who has transferred the land in contravention of sub- section (3) is not alive, while disposing of such land preference shall be given to the heirs of such person".
17. Apart from the above condition regarding non alienation and the consequence of forfeiture of land to the Government and discretion to restore the land to the grantee or the grantees' legal heirs, Sec.7A of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act provides for punishment of the purchaser of such land with imprisonment upto six months. Sec.7A of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act reads as below:-
"7A. Restriction on transfer etc.--(1) No person shall transfer or acquire by transfer 2 28 OS No.25870/2011 [for a period of fifteen years from the date of re-grant made on or after the date of commencement of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 2003]2 any land disposed or regranted under sub- section (4) of section 5 or sub-section (3) of section 7 and any transfer of such land in contravention thereof shall be null and void. The land so transferred shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5 shall mutatis mutandis apply to transfer of such land. (2) Any person who acquires by transfer such land in contravention of sub-section (1) shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months".
18. Therefore, it is very clear from the reading of the above provision that non alienation clause in Sec.5 is mandatory in nature with the consequence of forfeiture of the land to the Government and also purchaser becoming liable to punishment of imprisonment. Hence, 29 OS No.25870/2011 purchasing the regranted land in violation of the above non alienation condition without permission from the competent authority amounts to a punishable offence u/s.7A of Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act. Re-grant as per Ex.D.1 is made in January 1981. When that is so, the General Power of Attorney as per Ex.P.5 is obtained by the Plaintiffs vendors GPA holder G.Utham Chand on 18.11.1986 itself. Ex.P.5 clearly evidences the same. Similarly, Ex.P.15 General Power of Attorney is obtained by the plaintiff no.1 from the original grantees on 27.03.1985. So, within a period of four or five years of re- grant made under Ex.D.1, the regranted land has been purchased through GPA and thereafter, Sale Deeds have been got registered as per Ex.P.1 on the basis of the said General Power of Attorney as per EX.P.1 on 29.04.2006 and as per 30 OS No.25870/2011 Ex.P.10 on 10.05.2007. When the regrant under Ex.D.1 was made, actually the non alienation clause was infinite. But, by amendment in 2003 the non alienation clause is restricted to 15 years. Said 15 years of non alienation clause introduced by way of Amendment in 2003 is applicable only to the regrants made subsequent to the said 2003 amendment. Whereas the regrant as per Ex.D.1 in question having been made in 1981, non alienation period was infinite and without permission of the competent authority, it was impermissible to purchase the regranted land. Also Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act is secular in nature and it applies to all classes of regrants and protects their interest. From the above said provisions it is crystal clear that the purchase of the suit land is in violation of the non alienation clause. PW.1 has 31 OS No.25870/2011 categorically admitted that permission has not been obtained for purchasing the suit land from the competent authority. Therefore, General Power of Attorneys and Sale Deeds through which the purchase is claimed by the plaintiffs are void abinitio. Apart from that, actually the purchasers herein are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Sec.7A of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act for purchasing the land in violation of the above non alienation condition. Hence, apart from the fact that the purchase is null and void abinitio, possession of the suit land by plaintiffs is illegal.
19. The Defendants have already moved a petition before the Asst. Commissioner under Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, for restoration of the suit land claiming that they belong to Scheduled 32 OS No.25870/2011 Caste. In fact, suit land is Thoti inamthi land regranted to the ancestors of the defendants. PW.1 admits that the proceedings under Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, is still pending. Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, is meant for protection of the depressed class. Re-grantees had remedy under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act as well and apart from that, since the defendants belong to depressed class, they are entitled to approach the learned Asst. Commissioner under Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. In this connection, Sec.4 of Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, is relevant to note which reads as below:-
"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any 33 OS No.25870/2011 transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. (3) The provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority".
20. So, Sec.4 of Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, also prohibits transfer of granted lands to the persons belonging to the Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe. It also declares that any sale in violation of the terms of the grant shall be null and void and no right title or interest in such land shall be 34 OS No.25870/2011 conveyed or be deemed to have ever conveyed by such transfer. Sec.5 of the said Act provides for resumption of such land and restitution of granted lands to the grantee or their legal heirs. Sec.6 of the Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, imposes prohibition on registration of transfer of granted lands. Whereas Sec.5 (2) bars jurisdiction of court to grant an order of Injunction in respect of any proceedings taken or about to be taken by Asst. Commissioner under the said Act. Sec.5(2) of the said Act. reads as below:-
"5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.-
.......
(2) Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under section 5A, any order passed] under sub-section (1) and (1A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken 35 OS No.25870/2011 or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act"
21. Now, admittedly, proceedings under Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, is under way before the learned Asst.Commissioner. Admittedly suit land is a re-granted land and same has been purchased in contravention of the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act as well as Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, because PW.1 has admitted that no prior permission has been obtained from the competent authority to purchase the suit land. Hence, if any order of injunction is granted same may operate against any action that the learned Asst. Commissioner may about to take in the matter. Hence, as per Sec.5(2) of Karnataka SC/ST (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) 36 OS No.25870/2011 Act, Court cannot grant an order of Injunction. Moreover, the purchase is blatantly illegal and it attracts punitive action in as much as the purchaser can be punished with imprisonment upto six months. Under the Sale Deed and General Power of Attorneys claimed by the plaintiffs they have not derived any title to the suit property. By operation of law, the said sale deeds and General Power of Attorneys are null and void abinitio and suit land has vested with the Government. Their possession is also illegal and in this situation, though a restricted order of injunction was thought of, I am of opinion that same would encourage contravention of mandatory laws made for protecting the depressed class, who is actually liable for penal action. So, in these circumstances and also in view of the bar u/s. 5(2) of Karnataka SC/ST 37 OS No.25870/2011 (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, I am of opinion that, plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of Permanent Injunction as sought for. Consequently, Issue Nos.2 and 3 are answered in negative.
22. ISSUE NO.4:- For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is herby dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
--
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof, is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of February, 2020)
--
(D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR) XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.38 OS No.25870/2011
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
P.W.1 Sri.Kushal Raj
2. List of witnesses examined for Defendants:-
D.W.1 Sri.N.Ganesh
3. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs:-
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 29.04.2006 Ex.P.2 Katha Certificate dated 09.08.2006 Ex.P.3 Katha Extract dated 25.08.2006 Ex.P.4 Katha Certificate dated 25.08.2006 Ex.P.5 General Power of Attorney dated 18.11.1986 Ex.P.6 to 8 Receipts Ex.P.9 Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.10 Certified copy of Indenture of Sale Dated 10.05.2007 Ex.P.11 Katha Certificate dated 09.01.2007 Ex.P.12 Katha Extract dated 09.01.2006 39 OS No.25870/2011 Ex.P.13 Katha Certificate dated 16.12.2005 Ex.P.14 Receipts Ex.P.15 General Power of Attorney dated 27.03.1985 Ex.P.16 Registered Sale Agreement dated 17.01.1983 Ex.P.17 Receipt dated 19.01.1983 Ex.P.18 Notice dated 11.03.2011 issued by ACP, K.R.Puram Sub Division Ex.P.19 Certified copy of plaint in OS No.25263/2008 Ex.P.20 Certified copy of written statement in OS No.25263/2008 Ex.P.21 Certified copy of Memo dated 31.03.2008 in OS No.25263/2008 Ex.P.22 Certified copy of IA dated 06.03.2010 in OS No.25263/2008 Ex.P.23 Certified copy of Order sheet in OS No.25263/2008 Ex.P.24 Certified copy of IA dated 22.02.2011 in OS No.25263/2008 Ex.P.25 Certified copy of petition in SC/ST (PTCL) No.113/2012.40 OS No.25870/2011
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of the Order in HOA No.48/1980-81 Ex.D.2 Affidavit dated. 17.09.2019 Ex.D.3-4 Two Affidavits of Muniyappa dated 17.09.2019 Ex.D.5 Affidavit of H.Krishnappa dated 17.09.2019 Ex.D.6 Affidavit of Narasimhappa dated 17.09.2019 Ex.D.7 Affidavit of Chikka Muniyappa dated 17.09.2019 Ex.D.8 Death Certificate of Nanjundappa Ex.D.9 Certified copy of complaint given to the Inspector of Banasawadi Police station dd.
8.3.2011 (D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR) XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
41 OS No.25870/2011