Karnataka High Court
Manchamma @ Rukmini W/O Late Shankare ... vs M T Narayana Gowda S/O Late Kari ... on 30 June, 2008
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
In was HIGH COURT 0? KARRAIAKA Ax aAngéLsgg W,"
DAIED yams rag 3o"'§Ax OF JUNE, 2§Q$'f«
PRESEWI'
THE HmN=BLE MR. Juswxcg K:L;EAN&Ufl$TfiH }
ANn.% ". 2. ,_5 ,
THE KON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B,V.HASARA$HEA
warm APPEL HQ 35:9 eE,éag§
BETWEER: __ A-- *.'
1 MANCHEMA E R9Kni§:'=~* 3
WlG_LAmE,SBA§KARE,GGWmAWE
Aagn A303? 42 zg$
R/e_aHxxxAMgLLuRx "
cHAmNA2AmwA*rcwH,"x*
aAEGALQREvR§R&L"Q1ST .,. APEELLAET
__.(3y,$:i: R§E"aAp§§:vA2PA,Anv.)
. A§§ M . .
1.'M:T'&§RAz§uA GQWQA
',3/0,LA$E KARI THIMMAIAH
AGEE_A$OflT 55 YRS
. R1b_nAxaALwARp2T
,"=¢HAKnA2AwmA waww
<_E$&LORB RURAL 915$ .., RES?QfiDEfiT
°* :§g§ 5:1: M c cHwnA1AH,Anv.)
.. T323 WRIT APFEAL FILE {US 4 GF THE
KAREATAECA HIGH CCEET ACT PRAYING 'E0 SET ASIDE
THE GREEK P333333 IE TEE WRIT PETI'.i';iQ1~E
}¥O.2'8'?1"?/2602 IEATEB Q8fG9_f2QQ5.
necessary licence from the Tawn 1-11.1ii._1 'é2;i.§~a1
Counc3'.1._,, Channapatna and that
having suffiaient funds for t.":¢:;zf=,_.+sV1';-'§3.?';,v1~i:::§+;::L.4:>_:'zT» '<;.:
the sane. on the grouncié thaitjj, fihé A'E:t§$"§3Q#'V1§§Ié£t '
has nut vaaated the;;:_»re1n1':3.1eS'-- ins;S~;it.1é 'off h1$',
repeated requests, filed.
The petiticn waS::4"'conté$§é.§3'r;_ the: Eéspandent
cm the grcuné. has not
p1.1rchased.; ' 9i§:~;:>;a::"1f:.jg ' registered sale
Madaypa. as stated
in the petition is filed
at _the " zgfxatégnzite :c>£ the persons who are
i':§§:in2,'ca3;.T;y tawards the responcfient.
him, he is not a. tenant can a.
mjfithlyl of Rs.1GG/- in respect of the
and there is no x:e:1a.t:ic:n.-ship of
'lafidlord and tenant and he denied all other
N _ §aZI.l¢-*.2t:_g'a.t::i.<>ns mate in the petition.
3. According to the respondent, portion
of the garqgaerty had belonged to one <D)/ M.P.Bhojag<::wda and he had leased the prcrperty to him measuring east. to west 60 feéétt-:"L:'-.T..é;nd north to south 45 feet: on the ee2é. §"tr~:r:1f1"
and 35 feet on the westegfi' 9 rent efi Rs.50/- per .?:.?, and he: has been e:ij*§i':,ng thfi' j;'s'eé by' running a cycle s1.;andA.*"" th§é"prc:j:>erty is situated in fron1:;"Mtf;£M ":a*.,.l7r.',:;i.r1_T&e'1.v::é;;'¢:f..:tzglkies he had paid an agaxvgnsge: 'and R.9.3,000,!_ towafidgfiy 'of rent. In all, Rs.8 ,"C*QG/%- Subsequently, the anther of _ né§trI£=.?'iy, Eramma entered into an of'VV""'§§é.le with the respondent on I-I _ V since then onwards the 3A'.'au."La.1:.:i..:.'>1'_'i.f::«,';k§jV.'i.1:> of landlord and tenant has came tea i§1.?;_ * and as he has agreed to purchase the pzcfirperty for a sum of £315,000/-, which was ___§:2a.3'..d by him by adjusting the advance amount czf Rs.5,00€)/-- received by Bhojegowda tawards the sale consideraticn and a sum ef Rs.3,000/-- H. yaid as excsess rent to Bhojegowda. adjusted totnar.'-:33 the sale T Similarly a sum of m.4,ooo,!f§ loan 't:.<> Eramma. was a..21Vs<:_~4_ adjuéted "théf: ° k>a.1anee.?ccE $.3,000/----
the presence of in the math of qune Aj,;2;_8 '€;A.._ and her son have" V. ._.e;itire sale consid»era*u:i9I*:é Iis »'1'.'he::eafte:::: the " V? portion cf the yroper1."§ytaV another gortian to anotI§;;e:c*LA tcézmaat'; fheiefore, he requested to an the gonad that: there 1 ii résiatjiaitéship 91'-I lancllam am-1 tenant. the trial ccmrt, the getitioner *»;*as;L as PW1. one Ishwaraiah was as PW2. She relied upon E2<:.P1 to ..3?.i5. Cm behalf of the respondent, rnmpczzdent was exaxnineci as EEFT1 and three xwre witnesses were examined as RW2 to EH4 and the resgandzent 9/, relied. upcrn EJLRI ta R29. 'She: trial am'.:..:t after cansiderzing the evidence let panties held that there was an agraeme"' KS1? M sale in tfiavczur 9f the respc:'ii§§WentA_ iand "he:
did mt file the suit limitatxcn and. tharefrfirefi, the.' *v..;;{::s4;s+§:iaént cannczt cantend he :L:§""iri:'jp¢V$":5;sessAi§z2bf the property uncier the sale and passed an ofi halding that the bu,:i1d:;fsc;.5»V:.ra;s'3.4Vvi:;:'d§:1apiV-figeited condition, by its am;-g» 2900, 55:".-. LA being aggrieved by A;azifi=.».:=--..'o£ "" "fa.-.:;.c»n passed. by the Cfiivil V;~E):i~v:i.sion) , Channapatna. filed a re€r:§._$i¢-2: §::>é£ora the District Judge, which T's:"i.m.zi came to be dismlssewd as abated in at the Karnataka Rent Act 1999.
.:'1:}Lerea£2;er, the respondent filed a. writ V Petitican. tzhallangiing the Grant: of evictien in W.P.}é'o.28717/2002. The learned Single Judge 8 censiderzang the agent of the dt.23.9.1983 held that the respondent ie_inC * yosseesien of the properfey pxerforrnance of the ag1fe.e_'ment=,_"'~-- eviction petition by appellant was Aeeeedingly, the Writ Petition egg' the ardezr at exrietien Judge, (Jr. D:i.v:i.s:i.<:>n): aeide .
Vehe order passed by the the present appeal is V A V 'V to the learned counsel for the learned Single Judge has 'a seriaus error in hczlciing that
-:i.f's a. sericus dispvute of relationshiy czrf and tenant and that the respondent is possession at the Qmperty under the part VV performanee ef the agreemnt as envisaged under Section 53-A of the Transfer ef Property 6/' Act. According to him, the Judge did not take pain to a¢n§iagtf~fihé*J ccntents of the ;
interyretation had been' to 1 cit . 23 . 9 . 1983 , the 1earné.§€i.:Vv:..VS37.hglér.V_ not have allowed ._ getting aside the order of by the learned s1ngiéfl;u§ge3:kJ::hfi;};'channapatna, According executed, an agramhhtv under the said documeht , by her son Late Bhojegowdah' .tr§éhted as achrancze sale vthconéiéeratipn ihwéfldition to Rs.3,000/-. Then "thé,£ea:n£ng]Rs.7,ooofm had not hen paid by the and no proof was plat:-.e<;i before 3"~'~__ i*:he Céuhft below to Show that he had paid the ha?..ar§'s:€:e sale acmsideraticxn af Rs.'?,0Gfl/- and is 3.13:3 his case that the tenancy between tflrannna anus: the respondent has been amarixttecl under tha afigrht and it stated in the 6?' a.gre%t that the respondent, till '4 of registratian of the sale not? required to pay rent. In} oi;_1fi e.fc: entire docunent; ds:>e:s_r _;'1ot '*._x£§ay respondent was allowed fi@ fie c§§fiin§¢d in possession of the part performance of the under section 53A Act.
Acmrding fcgreexrsent is of 1983, iii: ¢§d§§[t#§5§e$#%$fient has not filed any 311Imii"t.J"!;g3V agreement. of sale. Uxaclmzy .1.-L.he :gVt.1:i.'.*.=§;'s: '-off a sentence under the <T ag;ééfient "ya Hfiéfifiot be treated to be in the praperty under the part :31? the agreement. He also us to canszidaar the conduct cf the V' in not paying rezaaining aaie "-'. §::ar§s:i.c1erat;1c:n and mat. apyroaahzzng the Caurt " ~~ £oJ: sgecxztfinc "performance cf the agreement. Therefore, he ctrzntends that the learned. Single Q3,/' Judge has coxmnittad an errar in a1low:'mg "'.Tthe petition. Ta supyort his a.rgur:aent«.,.....'4';2éé__' placed reliance an the Judgment <:>£V__fl.': n4g K ceurt in 13.3. PARvA*rHA1~e4s;; vs ,3, -: reperted in AIR 2003 _r-:.«f;: 3§5wV:;A2".--.. gea;ym; this judgxnent, he tha5;._fih-én party was nut willing : 1f::i.?...*sr. pz§i*tAVV of the contraet and when a 1»:-2:5' VAA-ézztually put in possessziong tiig the §art perfcgi*maTfiri<i::'.§ ., pf: agréément, when he has right sue' the agreement of sale, the ..1ea:§i;«.=,:§-1' v sii2gi'é Judge ought; to have " V' {the fiéizition.
' -s§:;=._ 'ii-é';:.V:'_i£*.ontra, the leamad counsel for: the-,4_V _x=s:}_§*g:»<:.$nmnt contends that agreement: T"~»___"--dtz.23.97'.1983 would raveal that the respondent V. w'a:3j':A.--'pz1t in pcsaesszen cf the prczaperty under __'£:.§1e part. perf::s;m,a.nce of the csontraczat. According to him, he has been exercising his ownerahip un®r the agrewnt by letting emit 51 §%/ '.
il pmrstion ef the property to namely, Sarojaxma who has been 1 V' RW3. He further ta1i=:it1"x§?1*:e.*1 "Vtri£a respondent is in posvacassion 'Eff even if a suit is mat bV§'r~._th€.-V' régpendent to enfarcre the oi': the sale, e.»v:s.ct;_on appellant was not H the appe.-13.a.m:
has to a civil suit for gtith law. Tc: an';-port his placed, relianae cm a Bijv+i.s3ioz{ .'VgTu€i.gment ztzteported in ELF. 3.987 "7' 3§"£a__ ;;.r{ """ Hizhe case of PRATAPSINGH vs. and a Full Bench judgment of A12-::3.s,__~ in HARASH-EIASETTY vs. PAm«xAsE*r*rxr n vfiepzaozgized in 11.3 1998 KAR 3230. Therefare, he *z:e-5que:§ts the Caurt to dismifis the appeal.
9. Having heart: the cczunsel for the parties, the «only point to be considered by us in this aypeal is whether the resgvondent is in W. .% ; V. L?
yossessicn of the property under 53A of the Transfer of Eszaperty whether the order 0f tfisé X requires any 1:mc5£:i.£T;i.Vr.::-:_1jt'::i.z;><x«*1----.A_' ~._
19. As stated the facts of v":<'-'.¥'«JVi"=.'.v'LV.¥Fi'?.'«\.€«!'3: The appel.'Lant is ave: the Prapertgg ' 'oz; ":%"a>u."!. e:f' deed executed by one turn has purchased zrama and that the Kai:ha"o:E ' has been trarzsferreci try the t:fze: $ppe11ant and has been paying t$a;~:> regulaféijf to the Tm-In Municipal Council disclose that she is exercising
--..__1;h«_&:~ ~:a§é:;j'32'.ATof ownership, it is also not disputed the raspandent is alacr claiming right ihrcugh the very same Eramma under an agreemzzt c:1t.23..9.1983. It is also not disputed that prior to 23.9.1983, the praperty in question was in occupation cf the (EV, 13 respondent as a tenant under Eramajéfifighénnn aon late Bhojegbwda. In othex_»w§£dS}:.thfi"u. tenancy in reagent of th¢_ prnépfiy %is¥an¢;f disputed by the resp<.'s1'x:$n1:. ' .3.-'.13.; n.2}-3.; 91§3:§; Therefore, the crucial finnnt to En nbnniared by us in this appen;§;sflnn$£n¢n"tne rnénondent has been in ppsse$$i§nVnf1tfi§ §§nperty under the part Hfiéfifnrmnnégj nfijnfihe: entrant as required the Trarxsfer of Pro§£§ $finyV_§nci@nn 53%; of the Transfer of Proprny_E¢t'rnnnsianjfiéreunder:
;"~_534a, "?a£t.iperformance- Whaxe any <per$6nycontract§ tn transfar for consideratian ~ property by writing signed by ii:£::.--..,na:E*A 47>_n behalf tram which the terms V necassamy ta censtitute the txansfer can be "~, ascertained with reasonable certainty:
Wnand--the transferee has, in part perforanae of xR=n:tfie contraet, taken gossession of the praprty u7.or any part thereaf, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in Qossession 14 in part perforznance of the c<>ntra_cr§_:E' ' }'2.=a;s, done some act in furtherance: of and time transferee has pe;:#1i"é:m.~:e;:1"..Ao1;*« ;A£'s'«__:-.r_i';I;:V'.%;::i.z'i:; to gperform his part of 1;h~<..=L:.Acc:é_i;1't:;i:a§b;!:.__,"' then, nutwitzhstanding w1':<:é§ic*«3:j_:1.'¥he:;Vi€aa is an instmment of tranggzex';""_tr§;+.;' 'VL'z:2;e tféfigfer has not been [email protected]é:i ':i.riu_ prescribed therefor ]:>y..the being in force, the" ciainung under hrifii , from enfarcing agair1$.n.TV persons claiming under; h:}:::[A 'respect of the prcvperty of whzicxrun the has taken or continued in p<2ssé:55i'<:nV,F'V--_ c$?;hiei* than a right exprassly by'the;_____%_;<e:rrns of the cantract: I nothing in this section shall affgct . . '_£:}§',se rights turf a transferee far T_c:;>n:s:e.r3¢3:ati<9n who has at: notice: of the ' L.;c::':.»r*:."£:,;f:a.:§'1: 0;: of the part performance thereof .. "
13.. In this backgrcrund, we have to " 'examine the recital in the agreement' at. 233.1983. There is a sentence in the Fif E5 agzcement which reads that as decided.
Panchayatdars, Erairma has agreed t.¢a_:9e:3;ul..._'__:' property tn» the respenrsient and 9 that «from rmw onwards fj.
registration cf the safl'-s=.~,_ deé;u'.i 't.11e need not pay rents to 5.21%; that the respandaent has to Tflélgzsétxitiigty chatgea and tax", A¢m1.tted;~y&,_V:'_..VV is dt.23.9.1S;Eii3.:;iit~t»t'3-»;.;3::'-- a sum of Rs.5,::0O£3 -- as advan<:.a sale cc:n$:i.cfi¢~::;;*;§.1;ic#r:._;«' Rs.3,000/-- was paid. as AA ':15 stated to have been 3d".jai.5§.ie<:I" t¢waJ.c§;§.'§AAthe agreement of sale. Thus
-- is stated to have been paid the fiééapondent to Erazrma. Remaining as:.7.','c:.:5o/m had. to be paid at the time of A' ragfistration . In addi tion to above, V. .,-1F%s.15,0O0/-----, the respczncient: herein has also agreed £0 pay the ccuzpensation amount payable to Gepala, the grand scan of Eramzxsa and the scan' W ii") of late Hhojegowda. at the time of cenpmmse in the suit.
According to the re£p¢nde--;iV1t; "h;=a"'«_h2is* remaining sale consi§ie_3:at4ir;fi*.. of But: no material is 1i"3'.~m°t=5 that he has paid the §gmag§ifi§ §§1e céfisideraticn of Rs.7,eoo/--. !f: fig aalfi§ f%fiated in his dbjection;s£§§emént £ha§ $$4§#& sf Rs.3,000/- was paid fig fihé fi§fi#§=%f §uhe 1935 to Erama in t§§ §£#s¢%§§ §£ pug éfipal and Siddegcwda. 'Ehe1:«.e; 345" that the said amount cf :..:'1*.$,A3,£'§'£3{) A/'-"'*s«?a..?;=3 faraid to Eramma in June 1985 . i.:.1riE=;'A pV1*e;fsen¢é:m'E>f Siddegowda and Gcvpal, 5in¢e Qgowda. cm Gogaal are not examined. ha:or¢~_§hé Trial Ccurt. Adittedly, the Arjesgfiézzzihnt has 1101.". filed any suit ta enforce " t:.hen5 agrefit. of sale. It is aiso come in .. that the Katha is standing in the name 9f the aypellant and the aypellant has paid tax and she has also plan for dmiition and .=;£e;H¢;;:>ns1;.s;«i:'c:'*.:§5;_ear':"'»:;~£.V building. From these i'§::v-ii,_4,;'.i§Ivs§az that based on the 2 d,1:.2V:3.AV.§$v;-v13R33,M 11%' Court: can held that '@133 put in possession. of the pazrt Perfomnancef. V c.>f:.-~-- The only concessidfi the respondent was to pay the rents tilji, __ registration. when the agreérzaént bf not been enforced by the r§.fsp:>ndeé2t.. vnfiling a suit for specific; of the agxraennent, it would he _ us to believe the ctmtenticran of the ..__r¢.5§oneient§ Counaiel for the respondent .. relyizig upan the judgment in FRATAPSINGH Vs. W_"JAi33u1~z2~z:sA, mam (:::..::.§R. 1937 KAR..---3464}
--iczantends that theta is aeerious dispute of title, :same cannot be cmnsidsered under the yrcsvisions 'of the Karnataka Rent Gcrntrol hat. <9/4 But: the aforesaid judgment has to the facts anci circ:uz23stance.$~'--'c»fj~.. since appellant' 3 title 1:15 :-né;f; only dispute is whethggr posseasican crf the S<.=%§:.53--A of '2}? Act. Theref¢7;hi?;--,' efiphnien that the said ju;:gauen't...i§.' to this case. " :::hh;é"""'he1ied upon the jucxgmrhg r:ARAsxm-.rAsE'1=1'z Vs. 3_9_auH§<A12. ---.3230) . Aforesaid judggnaht V hah 'V while considering 5115::-. ue:Ef%::.1V; '«:>'f £-'ieh.§3--A of the 'I'? Act. on ' was placed by the respondent ta:
he was put in possession «of the Apra5pe::}ty 'under the part. performance cf the "ac:f:tra¢t, aforesaid fiudgment. is also of no iassistanae to the respondent. Thezrefore, we are: of the View that the judginents relied IJQFOH ea}! 39 by the counsel for the respcnqeint 4' application to the facts _¢_:>£ _1_:.hi5' '
12. Honflzvla 'iz*z ?ARVA'1'HAI<R~£A vs. 200$ $.63.-3542) had w2'.th the relevant the 'I'.P.Ac'¥:
has . wéfiéerg» .. tenant. of the suit igimaelf to be in pc:s.*.:=eés"S2'.";>:i:*,§, under the gar: : agJ';eez::ent to purchase and when the "s';:;:§.i.: =_ by him for specific i-,;¢§:3f¢:;:»*s.i;:*2aa_Lr1<::»'..==. xHwas3"'dism;%.ssed on the ground that "-'ready and willing to yerfcrm his 9f :'1.fcfie agreezzzent and when he has failed to ;-xfbve that yassession was delivered 12%;: him uvzfiéier tha part: performance: of the cantract, 'Such possessian cannot be protected; in the ;:2.s*f.';a.3':f.; case alas: though mespondaent has relied upon an agreaztent dated 233.1983, recital of the agreazzent does mat disc}. case the ingredients of Se~c.53--A of the " Vha has failed to prove: that; he .;;:ViJ:;~s3Se$-:3V.:::.i:>r; "*' of the property under V' :1, 3:2':-':: of J the agxeement and he :'z2§V:s -'la. %s1fi. t:. for enforcing today, it wcmuld be ;;i1§'§;>u;é"V--§'vA.§o1;rt am now that he is in p9sse$aic§'n:~.c>#:% under the part g';a»:€_ ' agzsesement E Since 1eaz*g--;a<;i; net: interpreted the properly, we are cf thfi ¢5¥?3:"i".%' another serious error has by him in reversing the 'cf the trial cmxrt. Therefore, we " .a;'1:?e- dfv- ff_!*:1.'ie apinian that another sericzus error hfia cmtmitted by him in reversing the 2 AA findings of the trial czourt. fherefcre, we '§a.re cozzmlled to raverse the finding of the " learned singla Judge by 3.11:2:-ring the writ appeal. 5/
13. In the result, the Writ is allowed. The order passed by Single Judge in 'W.P.2B717/O2 ism herebfin $é£' m asid and thereby Writ Pefiiticnkfiled pg the respondent is hereby dismiaeed the of eviction passed 1.-,he'. _ budge,' (Jr.Division), chanpapa£naf;fi=HRc fi6;i/1994 is hereby confirmed. is granted for the vacate the ULJLJKJD