T Muniyappa vs Jayabharath Cooperative High School on 17 November, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

T Muniyappa vs Jayabharath Cooperative High School on 17 November, 2008

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN 235 HIGH cosnm or Kannaraxa, agH§3$a§s t_

DATED wars wan 17th nAx os §cvzmﬁ$Rg;25éee _ .

PRESENE""- V V
THE XGN'BLE MR. Jusmxbz é§AhD 5f§AaEnE§= "<
R.p; 359/2éc4V V J A: '
LRRP No. 158¢{1991~A__ V}
BETWEEN A    1'

2 MUNIYAPRA _ ."
sxo THIMARA¥aP§A 

73 YE&R$'t . §_,", _
ATTI5ELE;*AﬁEKAL zagux
3g$sA:QRE~pIsT,_=»_*_ , ,' PETITIOHER

{ﬂy Sri : g"ﬁWrﬁ:@3AR$éA2§a{ _.
5&3 I V ' V V K >7 2

1 Jnxasxaaarﬁucecpaaarzvz 3163 SCHOOL
A.f!.'TII.-;'fEI.3,  mzaxmc

 Q1333  ..... 

-  'REP BY ifs HQN.SECY

H2H.G"SxDQAz£NG£IAH

'sings nggg'mf3ri NAmAaAJ
§nAc3xAs'R5s§9snmHw NO.1

"2 .rxaViAmn rRiﬁuNaL

va, '$REKAL"?$£UK, BY ITS CHAIRMAK

Qf3 "éggV$wArz or xaaxamaxa
' .B¥_IT$ azvanva sacs

 v_ ~vIaHAuA sounxa, BANGALORE RESPORDENTS

v1u f§§y 5rﬁ, 6.9. ASHWATHKARAIARA FOR &~1)
"r_?{3y~3az. ssneaussn 3. ERTIL -- GGVT Anv FOR R2-3)

Z



This Review Petition is filed under egdéx 4?
Rule 1 of CPC praying for reviéwu}afr.the

order/Judgnnmt and decree at. 31.7.2§€1 pés§ed7ina
ERR? .No. 1684!1991 on the file _m§:*the  Honfbie",

High Court of Karnataka Bangal¢re;

maxs 3.9. census 03 #63 FINAL 3s3a:NG3"r$:s
Day, was COGRT MADE rag EQLLOWIN9; *_  _,m.= »y

9 R b 5.3

ﬁeard the 1§§:§e¢z¢$§n§§i £§z the petitioner
seaking $&§i€" f§ﬁ. %§§yf9*§3n in a revision
petitiog}1;giﬁgR;§ﬁ}Ng.i6é§k;§§i, which was later
numbg;g§.gg ;3g}g;§;i6$§g9£, pre£erred by the 1"
res§Qn$éﬁ£ ha@§in %§ain$t an order passed by the
Land ',Refotm$  ﬁ§§§iiate Authority in LEA.

1342f198§,»hwhéxéin. the appellate authority had

' *», zeéeésea the 538g: of the Land Tribunal; Anekal,

"gat¢@a 2§;;2~197e and directed registration of

'Q¢éupgﬁ¢ﬁ'%ighta of land hearing no,51 measuring

aboeéﬁé acres 8 guntas in Giddanahalli village,

 ':$§ekal Taluk, in favaur of the petitiener herein,

}§he revision petition having been allowed by this

"Court nd having set aside the arder of the

3'



question had been donated by 

under the sczheme and the entries £¢ﬁ:n<£ A_"wz2.vi1 Vthégtv' 

regard were fcamd to f':;3l1y _   hbe;':«;é ' ﬁne 7

appellate azxthority was    1.:'o.:4. 

the land in question   ncﬁf  
Shazrabanna and that t;f;e«w::-et:i.,i;io%§ér~.hi.;aself was
the owner of thé   by virtue of
the order pazsea,  vS,g;L_._ " Ccm:u'.ssiene:r,
Izzams    j&n'c'$'  s'iiéh order has been
produc:-ecii   "    Reforms Appellate
   2 

 Gﬁ t1;fé'.v"hénd, the materials produced.

before: téie _sam éutiiézity indicated that the land

  ques%.1;1on""':;rasV gifted by the above said

 "and it is Sharabanna who was the

 e31é:i{:;inér..'iV :'j"¢.$§vner of the land in question. The

 produced including the gift deed.

" .. npr'Qd.u¢§'ed by Sharabanna under which the petitioner

 --v;§#.s  claizzaing a right and interest in the land and

' t1';at the entries made in the mutation register

would indicate that the land was not avaiiiable

3



Bhoodan Yagna Board constituteé. und§:t'thﬁtt§nt,

1963. As such the land? was not §i§&na t$tt§n§,

authority under the Bhoodgnmragna Ag£}K1§s3;'npr} °

was it brought under the  
Act. Renae, the  {if   that
secticn 107 of eye Act,ﬁ§u1&,gxtiud§Ht$e land in
question fra £h§".aﬁp;i§$ti§§' cf the Act is
erroneagsi G3;    .. 

5._ ii fig t£u£g$é§t:§£§§é& that it is an
a.¢nitt§<1    either in his
nan.-§, 'V  his sister-=13-law,
 tvs'aV._..-igu»  of this land as early as

on , 19'?"i9".«..:V axién  per the evidenee of the

 of' 'tZt1'éV 1'""' respondent institution. This

V V' ..:f;.§:ct has also been overlookeé by this fielding in favour of the 1"' respondent aixd Vtttizfehce would place reliance an the Judgxruent af AA 'Ti:.?;e H Supreme Court in the case of MORAR MAR >'B'.§$SEIaIOS CATHOLICOS ME AKOTHER V. MOST REV. MAR EOEILGSE AT!-§A!~XA$I¥3€« A243 OTHERS M AIR 1954 SC 526 Z to contena that revie petition 4wog1a.yha§e rte dcemozzstrate any one of 3 specific vf_:i.2:3.':"

" (1) disccveryzhi inportant matter or wh£.c}2;;"-.

after the exerc::Eee».__ of was eat withix'1 "u.e._V'é'the knowledge er-' .z:<:ould'" net V' preciuceﬁl by hm at the decree was Passedt V : 1 :'.{<.:i.:j.:.R)"_-. apparent on "r._e<:s.<::'rrA-i!,', end 1, tier) 'f§£T.eﬁy tether sufficient % géag§n."~;-

And. 'that, '£:17;eA:.:pre:+jer:i:;" case would fall at least tinder th.1r<:i*_ eround whereby it is cleariy the above circumstazzces that §i13',s"~._ was in error in construing the f:V>:t:u record. and the provisions of law, the eréideeee by way of adrnisszi.-one and the 1"' n 'A ,r:eep<§i1d;ent's own pleadxngs.

5.. The further c:,i.rc1mta.nce that the very

-Tierder under review seeks to protect the petitioner's possessiczn and the same hag been 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court