Sridhar S/O N Revanna vs N Revanna on 18 January, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sridhar S/O N Revanna vs N Revanna on 18 January, 2012

Equivalent citations: AIR 2012 KARNATAKA 79, (2012) 116 ALLINDCAS 800 (KAR), (2012) 4 CIVLJ 344, (2012) 2 KCCR 844, (2012) 2 KANT LJ 202, (2012) 3 CURCC 410

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 'courrr or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 4 JUDGUIIT Heard the learned counsel parties .

2. The appellants Vwere;2tte §ieiuti£fs"t before the Trial Court;'I-:"'V~»The.y'----.§liL!si'f£3 when they inatitutejdﬂ through their natural paternal 9re11dmotheJ'.'-

3. .IvThv9"A"fG'aI§1e;;-tithe'-vwspiaintiffs was as fo1lowsé_"i 'i W theviproperties were the self-

Gipxgperties of their qreat~ qi;a1:i§iI'AaItIIGif1,'j'.:='I-iuniawamappa. He had, by three 3 Bpa.£a.1;éH wiregistered Gift Deeds dated executed in favour of his wife and two in favour of his grandson Viv'A.._4'414:Revanna~defGndant in the suit, gifted the suit properties. It is further stated that é ﬁx 5 the properties were in the occupation, of tenants. Mnniswamappa and his " ﬁiidg Akkayamma had expired in the years 1961, respectively. It is."'t'héI._vd--Ia_sIa plaintiff: that unde;_ the .G1£§;fnH§d$;iI vneither Akkayamma nor Rﬁtéhng had dhf right to alienate the were conferred with a to enjoy the propettiddinﬁutiﬂdf_t§Gi£i"iifetime and thereafVt_9;f:v' to devolve on the Kb1.,./.ﬁ':\~.,....Nc:-'twithstandinq this limitatioﬁ."_ dafHnd§nt No.1-Ravanna had Hsproctﬁdgd utdG"aiignate the suit properties "undértsaiaaﬁeeas dated 7.10.1935, 9.10.1995 in favour of defendant No.s.2

--if,.tc 5. "it is the case of the plaintiff: that é1i1_g:111":'jt;:1ienations were void and did not bind plaintiffs. It was their case that they id"Hhad a vested right immediately on their HIGH counr or KARNATAKAH|GH,.€(i'A)il:.'IRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or-' KARNATAKA HIGH cc 5 HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH Coum OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH 6 birth. The first plaintiff was to the said Sale Deeds. _~'I'h_e therefore, alleged that deténdant in collusion with the tenanta in --¢¢_cunatinn of the suit prop'e;tie8"' saeekinjg to occupy the properties.' illegally demolish thal'g.TVL:i1'~saizIeg 1:3'ar'1c.1A:"".i."1tlfiétefore the plaintiffs » '~--G1an';:i'§ed of their legitimate h-luglilizioceeded to file a civil mm; in -d.~s.Ncn§k7os1/1995 and the said _vsuit_;'was Iwitnargm on 15.11.1995 with itp institute a fresh suit on the action and accordingly, the V suit?' which the present judgment and I?,1«_e¢rea._ under appeal arises, was filed.

In the suit, Defendant Nomi to 7 had _:entered appearance through their counsel and filed separate written statements .

Defendant No.1 filed a gritten statement IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH ,coL}RT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cc 7 supporting the case of the plaintiﬁfe contending that he was in dire need of and had proceeded under the bone ride? coupled with the legal opir;io1'1;< .t~ha;t:Av:ha_tvh*é:dK"".

obtained at the time of ».en1e',u. that Gift Deed there was 'Heell the property, as non-

alienetion imposec1vA......<§1V1... void and pleaded 44 . were not fraudulent H by the legal opinion:*.._ inn to alienate the suit propertie§._ to reimburse the the sale consideration °s:ecfeiveo_.f~tethem. Defendant Nos.'6 and 7, who'A_£I*ere'.'.V'Vt;_h.e tenants in occupation of the

---j%.if'_j:..«prroperties, on the other hand, had contended tifz§g_;;t;¢_":'A"A.they were not aware of any of the ':.V'j"'Vét_refnsaotions between the other defendants.

iifhey admit that defendant No.-3.2 to 5, _who 8 HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIG-I-I" COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGHI / 8 were the purchasers from defendant Nq;1{;hndTa% filed an eviction case andh thegwnnmeh:hgdLV.i attained finality in ordiegrsy eir"i4¢i*.[i..c_i>n,;_ I having been passed aqains-1;. then. ._ Noa.2 to 5 had *c_gmnb'n.:v_'Av{_£'itten statement queationifid_h'thef=§IdnIéI_ of the plaintiffs gng ._._g-,n<:jgi'i'; ' Gn alleged that they .V..IzGVt-up by the vendor-jI;ie'fen;'c:3II.1:1i:;*:ff:A§' ii were acting' in tandem avoid the sale transadtions4"~.§ﬁ$§cious plea that there *ﬂV§v'ai.5IV 5r:c>ud§~tiI5n """" 'Kinder which the Propertfl been sold by defendant No.1, apai't:.. fxgtsxzfzriiaisinq other contentions. on the i'4"'77."'bV§aiVs4 of the said pleadings, the following sluice were framed.

"1) Mzether the plaintiff proves that plaintiffs have got absolute right over the aux' t: schedul 9 properties?

5

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C' 9 2; mother the p1a;I:1t,i:ff;, that defendant No.1 has C' alienate suit: acZ2ec'£z.z.v:Vl:"e:a_% pz}'t:per_;ﬁr=.:

favour of defendant £9 déx*:9ii§a1fIit No.5 and that eﬁid is And:

binding on the p14:n;i;ti'f.:.iF'g.*'f's"?

3) prove that i'¢bx4gdi"ﬁ'£'Qn _df._ _ Vizfeawraint on a1ie;n«.1t:_1"z:.r_ijiC':a€.:::_

4) plaintiffs are '(:6 . sought?

.. 5) decree?"

Nos.1 to 3 were decided the Trial Court . After di5<C:u.sai_._~n'gVC'.i'~~tChe rival contentions, the Court I E351 extracts the temswgfc the Gift f-RVOIII O RBVQDHE, 11 W35 Q8 fa-lies-is :

"The Dana: covenant: with the Dane: that an the date of these presents, the property that is now - 5 HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGAHCOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGP 10 endowed as a gift is free encumbrances , 1 .1' ens , attachments from Courtsﬂanicli";i'sp¢nV¢2e.nn_"'V"__if and that ha ha; it uniznpaachabla rightii gr£m__t' via": gift and that no ¢n&§._1e1xse..'hn§ ﬁny right to quest.1i.:>_n]~ we ;V:;4«§d12:¢sgA"'~t T1113 1:'; jaut the Dance 1;, oitgnggm gifted property law, which on and from thing or in equal sharen ._ brothers who he vi honraafter, over which he can exercise all rights of .¢ifn£3§r§j1ipV:'_i..subject to the conditions '=§étai1'éig;!*i:;nereinafter namely: - O the Dance at his younger brothers who may be born hereafter have no right to alienate the said schedule property in any manner mentioned iwhatsoever by way of sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise.

5 _.cM.?g'~g6s:, . A 'HIGH COURT OF I<ARNATAKAHIGH..c'OiuRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH coum" oI= KARNATAKA HIGH c 13 property would be contrary to Section IQ--___of the Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the brevity) since the absolute"Hreetreinti.:_'j>.le:¢eg."I. on the part of the T' with reference to of Section 10 of the also accepted the of the defendants % it the Indian Successi_o_hﬁ Gift in favour of gift and the elienetiohs4__4mede_.hﬁ.r" a would be binding V__.gﬁ;V1 _____ The Trial Court also found Aifaivourp contention that the first Gift Deed wherein it was _.:ﬂj_j:,.,be'queeth'e;d.VThy the Donor that Revenue and his brothers can exercise all rights or ' V--'i".:._'§';..?:v'z_;:'ership. Thus, according to the Trial "'A"»-réourt, absolute ownership was "conferred on 8 I E HGH oouR'r 0FKARt~W'AKA HIGH..CO_:u1T or KARNATAKA HGH courr OF KARN/:m<A HIGH COURT OFKARNATAKA HGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGI 14 Revenue since there was an express xtetmi under the Gift Deeds itself which ¢eh£§:g§aj7 such power and the second part' Deed indicating that a life interest and th§§e§t §ag<g¢rEe§bive e on the pleintiffe, <"enh'jthetr"""hirth, absolutely: would ht down in View of the ;_h':sﬁ~;;,6L:iZ'-untieta':.vtheA«:::»i§.ro.§h;i§'s'1one of the Act. Ineéteg he ¢§g ;gg£he: contention of the _ application of section 4' 16 of the Act is concerned, the cenélueion of the Court below akweegthat he on the date of the Gift, Revenue héd."'h¢,ehA hence the gift in favour of V-an uhb9hn»"hrothor of Revanna is not valid hh'.[t'1§;e:¢tahuge hit would offend Section 13 of the H In that, the whole of the interest VV""V.r> h3v:'e'V1'naininq in the transferor was not given to the unborn brother. Thus the gift in favour 8 H-IGH oouzr OF KARNATAKAHGH COURT_:0F KARNIATAKA HG-I couzr OF KARNATAKA HGH couzr or KARNATAKA HIGH oouzr OFKARNATAKA HGH c 15 of an unborn brother is bad in law. It..___is this reasoning which has been reiteret:eciﬂ'2o§'.. the Court below in holding th:$ttjVA:V.:VVitho"'_4'i condition imposed on Revannfé} "th_a't_ power to alienate the suit bad in law. This runs and in the Court ouit or the plaintiffsj 'it be dismissed. is under challenge .

6. v'°.'1I.'hef counsel for the appellagitsi," y_§ou,1-di'*.th'erefore, concentrate on I-Tithe' 'te'astoni.:iq "" "the Trial Court in hating condition imposed on Revanna was iew as being erroneous, having a plain interpretation of the Gift 'rand the position of law as is evident Vi a reading of the provisions of the Act. "firstly, the learned counsel would submit 6 E HEGH COURT or KARNATAKA H]GH"_COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 05 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HlGi E s E 16 that insofar as the Gift Deeds _.-ere concerned, recitals therein ought read in isolation and if the reci?t:al§:V.: read together, the intenti.'on"'is though Revanna could exerciiéseh'-ell ownership, it was "tot condition that he V .on}.j;:«._hﬁ"l.ire"Vuhinterest and could not Ag1ianat§A:«..tLh§ Hence;

the right seemingly conferred! affording the power -'Revanna. The fact that Revenna Vh'ad""Anc'::"'hdrothers as on the date __.of d'Deed}"5"'--..V1:1VVc__:}'.fA:were the plaintiffs born Ion' of the Gift Deeds, was inunf1ﬂg%riV§i'--'¥'i._V~.~'Ensofar as Section 10 of the ..vVr:onoerned, he would point out that, xpLé'rtnins to a transfer of property in of a living person. 'Transfer of 'V""A»t._4'4z'_:'roperty' is defined under the Act, as an X LHCGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGHCGURT OF KARNATAKA HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 1 17 act by which a living person transfersﬁ-the property, in present: or future, more living persons. Transfer to unborn persons is not Section 10 of the Act._: ItO"-A;'.":s-- conf:ernpVV.v':'_ under Section 13 of the

7. The léarnea seek to draw attesnt:|.§¢;.':z'.::.:VVf:o 13 as well as Hgnppﬁended thereto, which '.9.1"3__f"- benefit: of unborn _pﬁ::_.sonV theirs, on A transfer of .,':O..§rP9ﬁxAtYr interest therein is the benefit of a person 'V~O.§2"§1'atence at the date of the subject: to a prior interest crgkazced by the same transfer, the AA 'O'vj«z1.':V"eroe!: created for the benefit of 'éuch person shall not take effect Hunlass it extends to the whale of the rezuining interest of the transferar in the property.

18 Illustration: A transfers or which he is the owner to 3 in ;;ﬁ§§7$JFx far A and his intended ,Tw1f§f=:*' successively for their' V after the death of the eldest: son or nirgnczecz' marriage for life, VarId..V_af£er__i1ie for A's second son. .in.t'ere atJE5o created for eldest son does not take' igeogxuae it doea noc4_:'eIrtez;d""rrg of A': raminzrrg :1z;, vﬁroperty. -v

8. than-.Hpoi--n.tv"%out that a prior interesvt 1.9' favour of Revenue under then'%GiftI Deeos.--"7 and without such prior .,the "'p::cspVerty devolving in favour "person cannot be contemplated. sinoe_ contemplates only a transfer faifczfrir of a living person, it was "'f;h.-srefore necessary to create a prior " fuin.t«§erest in favour of Revanna and thereafter "'tVo state that the property would devolve on HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HAl.GH",:COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA HIG 6 IHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHlGH.CC'F.IRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUZT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 1 IIIII"»-devolve on the plaintiffs. 19 such other persons who may be born infrthe future. This is in accordance with 13 of the Act. The Trial interpreting the said se_cti.en;, 'Ines 4' 7 misled by the text of the II'i!_ection"II'I' expressed its view in i.nchc'et_eI rnanner. It is contended thepvvﬂpresent facts and circumstances is evident that an _ conferred ultimate_1yI_ s . The prior intereet of Revenue would stand abselutely;II_tre;nsferred in favour of is only if the remainder fthe~.n;inte'reet in the property is not favour of unborn person that nct take effect. Such is not the the present case on hand, since the ownership or the property was to There was s 6 HGH COURT OFKARNATAKA HIGHACOLRT OFKARNMAKA HIGH COlRTOFKARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HG-l COURT OFKARNATAKA HIG 20 condition and the condition alienation imposed on Revanna held to be void.

denied, the condition _ imoo_3ié--d while holding that th'a:jV.propertyf'.= to A devolve on unborn .§e.rso_n'eH_,t bexrendered nugatory. Hence. the?' cannot be negated on théigﬁfooltiiiﬁg.

9. Vvlneofiarjni-:;;:ee is concerned, it would ._beA:VV"3-§1:r;:{1J,y=.':':i*-rrolevant since it is only ifiitine '::"'i.ni;erest does not take

4._veffect_i<HthatV V'th;eVvv'meiv1:bsequent interest created the prior interest has View of Revanna succeeding iv to tine.' but he could not transfer during his lifetime since he had life interest and remainder of the "",~;.nt':"ere.st being transferred under the terms of the Gift Deeds in K favour of the Ir 'HIGH COURT or KARNATAKAHIGH ,C'O'!JRT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH < 21 plaintiffs. He would also contend that:"'*.Iit ie the case of the defendant: that obtained a legal opinion befoI:e..,"_"_fenﬁ.§1:I.in§"

into the sale transactionj; 'R.ei%.§n:na':'V..§__Ing':A that they had been advieecié"

Adviser to the effect tondition imposed on Revanna _ this is an admitted fact,.v_end:.theyA on the basis of not lie in the to contend that the he be read in their favour 4_he,nVG'e_ to property which _____ ..*.:he plaintiffs cannot be footing that defendant No.1 the property in favour oi' 503.2 to 5 and they had entered transaction on a wrong View or the but that they should yet be absolved of same and the transaction should be seved Z 22 is not available to the defendants therefore, he would contend that the decreed as prayed for.

10. The learned Shri.V.Tarekarem, appearing 'fair Aw.Ij;[:,:e:Veri1eVci counsel for the contesti_n§jj:de.1fend&nt.s,.é would contend that to 5 are bonefide It is denied that hate established that thvayrv the date or the alienation; ' ,.--no material evidence availeb_Vlei_ndi1:e't'e that they were born the tireﬁeection. Inthe absence or :«I'i2..i'eI_I:I}* very foundation of the "'plainIti£f.~1'A:fIE'.~'tease that the properties stood ""-1'i."f~,§e*eAted"Wen them on their birth is not ':'_a_Ira..i1ai31e to the plaintiffs. Even it ':'_4¢§th'erwise, Section 10 of the Act is a clear "her where there cannot be an absolute HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA H!GH_:COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIG 'S 3 ..CAO'FJRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H|GH< "HIGH counr or KARNATAKAHIGH "V"»».,tenants who were in 23 restraint on the transferee or any perrnron claiming under him from disposing_':~"efVV":Fhijei interest in the properties when or limitation is void in Section and even the mile against would come into pi-resent circumstance and ._a condition cannot bind the the Gift Deeds. It No.1 had ex§_rqi'se:i':iV1'V«1.:inf alienating the property plaintiffs are in poseeseionaﬁov their claim over the .... their remedy is against and the suit having been riiiaggtg§§§n%%§¢ars after the sale transaction eustained on equities as defendant 5 who had purchased the property to fight a sustained battle to evict the occupation of _the 6 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH: COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIc .~,. , 24 properties at their cost and effort and __had finally secured possession of the which the plaintiffs, who haxfe aPDarentlY set-up by ft}fath§r.iltHIV grandmother and the tenante, to prefer the present su'i:.tI~I.which_V_iAsf'.=nc.;MVbona V fide and is appar§n§13&V_I---§:'@;;§,ted by"'i'11eqa1 motives and hence the suit:

be dismissed?-' <;I;eeti'on,"'% that would arise for con;e.id.era:t'ié5'zI,'»..'V_j;':.1:'::"';§rhether the condition imposed Deeds against Revenue ,j"thatV-'i,_jhe,_§h.n11A'Hhairé only a life interest in and the property would devclgre unborn male children of absolutely, was a condition which in law and further whether the, 'VV'?_:1':'ivxa.§st part of the Gift Deed conferring Rcwnership rights on Revanna had the effect 6 %'HIGH COURT OF IO\R'I~IATAKAH|GH"'C]OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 1i}&gAa't'i.IveI'I 25 of watering down the condition of you- alienation. In interpreting the Gift Déédﬁ, as rightly pointed by the learned"

for the appellants. the memmttm+§ttc¢t.I be read comprehensively anﬁgthtt ﬁ§?"oné:6f".

the recital: cannot be"'~-gfead I :iz_1V_ "'A5,I.:3cxI1;1'tIion.

If the several .::'~..;¢c_i't'§1}}3_ I"-_t1.aveI""' to be reconciled, what is that Revanna had ttﬁf ; Lift itttttgt in the suit property no right to alienatgjett tecond contention whether thécﬁﬁﬂitiﬁﬁ imposed that he shall _not "§;4enaté.DtteI suit property and the I'-;;:Il1Aa:itr.c.I:'Vc;'.1If:'x':.A'...er«:4:t'r're.2_':e not born at the time of Gift I)eI'e¢:A'V.A.€-,II' the same would be rendered TO' void Iwﬁtlds have to' be answered in the 'Transfer of property', as I'4I"~'.___'];:§'oiV::zted out by the learned counsel for the I"-__G¢ppellants, is defined under the Act' as 6 % HHGH coum' or KARNATAKA H!GH'_:COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH counr or KARNATAKA HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA HK 26 transfer of property by a living person,"---.pji.n préfénth or future, to one or persons. Section 10 of the Act »;o%u:e¢gpp1yh' insofar as such a transre;§f»AA'V1§1:§f';§.Zp'et'§on.:ee:_"§9v':' another living per.5on._r Seotion 15*} Act does not contemp1ateV%'*»t_heVV an unborn person. It 1501 the Act, which provide.v3A....1'fqr 'of benefit to an because of the 5-thgth' in whom limited interest _ is ' and if he should traneferéthe a remainder of the v4._.prope1fj:jfe'~that' not take effect, In the hand, the same would not be V' the vesting of property in tlhe is concerned, notwithstanding may have been born after the Gift Hweretexecuted, is immaterial. since V'V"'A..,__ithereh was no issue as to the correctness of K m' IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGHACQURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT G-' KARNATAKA HIGH COlRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 27 the age of the plaintiffs, it ought trj"-.be devolved on the after the lifetime of Renﬁnnn; hinge there here no other persons,,who unto ﬁhpéhié of deriving such inter§.$§:'.«::'4.' were born w§;in,§nion ftohithgﬁ date of sale. Revanné wouio Lone the_right to alienate the pIOPeItY"uE.%§L is created in favour _.of the Gift Deeds which vhwonlo he I§= prohibition for Revenue to 7V%_ aiionateGth§;oroperuy. The contention that other defendants had obtained as "hhié§§iWopinion and had acted on the basis or AGG'jtho home would not absolve the defendants of V'G'A».._utheir conduct as being illegal since itwas 5 , ,.,,,-._._....n...¢.,..A--.'w,;--;.a presumed that they were born well the sale transactions. If that_h§f§o{fth§*,O property stood vested in the Plnintiffa on?

their birth. In that _4_view._r"' C3;

law which would certainly have to':Wtbe anewered in the negative, for ree«eehe__'_.i:4"..'ee».. already stated. In that view the Trial Court was <:1e;_eJr1;3'f' j;i"h,' holding that the Revanna was void. TheiiV~V.:._V'VVthe qhgeetion that arises is aeD_"':te er that the plaintiffs wogld at this point of of this court, t;%%:_g1ef§ndant No. 1 is precluded that he had obtained a wrong'é1egni"" and therefore he is to good the loss that may to the plaintiffs by such ~ei:.2-t'A as undertaken in the written etould have to be accepted. In event, the benefit that Revanna by virtue of the Sale Deeds, have be given to the plaintiffs. 'The Z 30 plaintiffs' contention that the propertyV:""'wae worth multiple times the sale which it was sold, is an _ uxifovrttiiate' .. circumstance. The interest demand that the plainti_t'feé"'.t>e to nothing more than what received under the Sale this alone which the p1aintii?'1.'§'1j:V.sfi--aVa;;:.;L".A'ﬁ'e'::'*'ﬁéfztitled to and it izésﬂ that othe plaintiftfgi to the sale considétfatioifV.2oo3i't'§d. Revanna under the Sale Deetlrf * _ 'i'i1e4VtV.:p>'l.:eé.i1tiffs are entitled to

4._,;ecoyq§g:tVV then' " from defendant No. 1 . defendant No§.2 to 5 were "i'Ié§ﬁotsible for creation of this it would meet the ends of iii: nominal costs are imosed on "which in the opinion of this Court be in the order of (25,000/5 payable Z 31 to the plaintiffs, jointly; Though in'.--Law, the condition was 'not to be held which event, though the plaintiff:

then claim ownership to th:§""1)rop§rtYj}.:_'V regard to the sequencg: ofV :'§ventTs .".%'.§nd present circumstance, the plaintiffs to 'ﬁfoperty necessarily has to order of temporary stands AAAA Sd/-

iz;

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court