H S Lakshmamma vs K K Ahammed Kutty on 9 June, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

H S Lakshmamma vs K K Ahammed Kutty on 9 June, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 (NOC) 2843 (KAR.) = 2008 (5) AIR KAR R 254, 2008 (5) AIR KAR R 254

Bench: V.Jagannathan

 

  

m 'I'I-m men comm ﬂF Kmasrarm, sANam;c::e3;%%%%kL %

mrmn TEES 'II-E gm my arr avmj  %      '

pmzsmrr  

'mm I-«mamas 1um...ms'rT*~'?E 3:   '

B§.A. Nc.2'§'?    

BETWEEH: A_    %*
Smt.H S  ,   _  2  
W!ce.Sa.rn'§a3.fa,A.g¢~:*.  *  ; 
Eta-Betvizwﬁagesﬁ-ra.1pe;t 'I?'<'ak«*'  X A  x 

[By 31-§  }%§v. z€ §_§ubbais&x, Adv.)
2. arm 

5,1'-::u];a32a  Kutty,

  .  Rc2a&,Vi:'a§p¢t,

'   Pia ---- 5?: 213,

   23 . "  Pnmary'

3: g ' '

its-9?;  aw

_ Rumi«:_ t %nls2 Ltégg,
 ..  by im Semtargrg
 _ 'fésrqjpet, Kzadagu Dkhiat.
 "E-"fa- 371 918.

"  ﬁaahtamg Reﬁstrar {sf
E39-cry. Sociaeﬁw, lﬁadikm
Eadagu D*strict, Pk: 5?]. 233;. .. ﬁﬁpaﬂdﬁﬁtﬁ

{By $21? ti': R Vwkaataaah Biiurthy, Ash. $1"

Sri Peavayya &C:c. far R3,
Sri M Ram Bhat, Adv. far E,
sri R K Hand, KCGP, £5: R3}



 R.S,A. is ﬁiaé unﬁt:-4:" $5-ctﬁci-3 1% caf QPQ,
wayilng ha mt asﬁaa 'aim juﬂgment am dmrm 

 

H:::.1'?f 2033 éated 1$a1i2£Q0'I~ passaﬁ by 
Judge: iSrJ}n.] at 'v""n'ajp¢t ami zmtere tbs  ~ 

dacﬁ clawed ?L'?.2{}C33 ix': €3.S,Nc:. 2?'?! 1§'%.

'§% appeal as mmlng' an far ggafga  %  A

thia £335, rm Ceurf: deli the f"e11iowijj 1'g:g- 

 

Wkaﬂm purchase  .3  ?
of saheduzg cg{m;[&%  the Ca.
caparaﬁve   Bank in
an    cf Sectian 4 <22'
xaammm  am Schedule mm
cpmlznébauan  Gawain Lam; Act, 1973

'V  ﬁxmhned in this agl.

 2Q  are not in asmpum, 2-me tn he

V sa»Vt.a_éaé "z'Exf.a£::ém5'&f5:I'dac;:* ta appmciata the paints put fxzxrwarﬁ

   manual far tk mmaa' ¢ The aaki

 _  facts am am under:

 am an K K mm Kutty [pEa:'11tiﬁ) rxaa the

suit in qucatien mbkg dwiaraﬁvan tn the eﬁhct that has

i5thems*'r1m'oft11esu£zasci::eduk paupear-ty mnm,su£%3

34



acrrm in $5. No.32$l§ﬁ. aimafxad £31 Bextcrli vtilhgefeazf

Eﬁajpet Think? Kmiagu. Bﬁtricg The 5.3% suit " 
wag gantad to: the 2nd cleﬁmdant,  '

ass & aaguvali ctﬁt was 'named 

Talmﬂdar' , Vimjyet in her   'E'§:1 e 2m* " 

awed-:21: pamperty m  deruﬁaﬁx, La.
Secretary, Viz*ajpefl;:_  Agnucu1mm1
am Rura}    km. sue
diﬁ amt   thus the 1-:
dermamsz -L  obtagm a deems
agaimavi   dated 11.19.1992,

_  the  3:3 abtaiﬁ, the 2"'  t

    amunt and  mds ﬁlm

I-t" 5§::a;opm~an'v-3 Em}: am 5.13. ﬁ'¢z=.5CI,f 92-

H Vv '$33 heiséérg   xty Ragsaar <32' Co-apmratim Seem' aim,

  remuery of I~"2s.24,{}{3£'.){- from the 2"'-3

 % «dsr.f§§3d£:a;§§u;t am shdefault ta mam thaa pmpumty uaclm' sale

  9.uc'&nn. T113 auctimn was held mad the

 upEa.i:1ﬁ%$W&a suowansz mag: and acmrdzmxy um sale

was mnﬁ1'% in 1173 fmmur an 2'3'.1Q.}.993. Follawing

2'?

J



the amunt Ming paid by the plaixztiﬁ; the prcapcrty gag
z'e@%'ae"m:i in his fawn: beﬁre the  " 

Wgmt an 1.2.199-in $3 the abow mm     

4, m p3a1nna}:1--mugu he 

maﬁa? rawtma ia 221% gm 'afmg Sub-
Ragﬁwm, has anught   the suit
 .    ;u£r.ppmac11 'tbs
M  anahk hﬁzz m mm
 hf     Ea aueh
delivas-my W; k%p1m arré thm-«ﬁom the
 _   tsriai smart far relief ct-f

 paiﬁﬁasaaicn of suit ssthzaduie prmpmty.

  ._ _  ::4::n'bested the suit of the  tiﬁ'

    -B Ca-opwazism Bank di§ mt

 basic facm. mm, the 2» w 

  emu.-:1 that aha: is in pasﬁwsicn cf the suit
  the sagumﬁ chit: beém smwd tn her and

 '£313 ggamw ii: cezaliusiaﬁ with tha 1*-eiefandant - (210-

npeméém &nk aomhaaw got tw suit schedule maperty

,>

,..!



 ciecree er the ma: crzzurt by

 and bag that the plaizltiﬁ as mauea

 to  of the suit aahadulae mtiperty as

 'has "  absclute owzm ef the propaty.

   by the mmaz of the guamnx by the kzwer

 %  mm, th: 2&6 ciefmdant hm pmfm-pm cm
   agl. il

wﬁ is: him in ﬁgs aumzimz spake bekw tbs market wing
am 2% ma itself was mt msadntainablse 
améﬁc bar ursdw Swtinm 4 ﬁftéﬁ PTTEL Ac:  V    H

é, Bamﬁ an the aformaﬁi if 
the trial mm &ma1 tha iasugggfana   %
51313.: mtﬁmmwmbm/my   valaa: new
that the plazmiﬁ is  }:m:3pe1'ty
mzxr hc Emnmzitlegl   am. The
ma: mutt   the said mm.
.   am, am pxainm

 

preierﬁ  "sz_;g' a'a";':t'be§o$V" "  Apeﬂam Cami Q 'ab

a<:t:@$T21:gﬁ;_v¥:ﬁ$ "a:ssa»x1:f;*:,aai;n{£,icAé1%1: j3§§.$, féxward by @ and sat



:0
Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga (1999(2) K.ar.I....J. 136)

and also Shri Yellappa Vs. Yellavva Kom Subray Gowda

{1987{1) Kar.L..J. Short Notes 1 1).

13. In the light of the aforesaid c0ntenti0I:s.'44';ii} g§§(iiiby

the learned counsel for the part:i<:s,_   

substantial question of law hersﬂlnfist-zfav 

Having regard ts tI1<V::u'ndisp1_1'ted fagfts.'f1:aiTaij.eE1~ = L'

the beginning of this jufigaient,  'A '<:a;§i1y for
consideration is  ifiiei 'appellafeVAVsourt was

justiﬁsd     the PTCL. Act as against
Sectioii .<} 0f   Before I proceed further, it is

necsssazy Vto.arsp11'od?.1ce the provisions of the aforesaid

    

  V1.4.'   of the Act reads as under:

"-4.'  :'..-Psrohibiiion of transfer of granted lands:

~ (1; Notwithstanding anythixlg in any law,

AA '  ageement, contract or instrument, any

' transfer of granted land made either before
or after the commencement of this Act, in

centravenﬁon of the terms of the gent of

 



13
pubiic statuteﬁnciudes both a nature} person (a human

being) and an artiﬁcial person (a Corporation etc.) and it
is plain that in common speech, "person" would  8.

natural person and in technical language, it L*i:ay.."§r;i:1e.an

the other, but which meaning it has in a  

must ciepend on the context  4:t1'_e"..A   '

Having expressed thus, the  on .to hol«f1 

the light of the said pI'iz1cip1e:o'f.iI1tefpretat:ion"snd in the

context of the provisions " ST 'Ac: 'pfohibiting
aiienation of genteel   to Section

7   'eperson alienee "should be"

understood oI1iy._ss._Vaw.n'stura1 person and none else. It

 ~. A_ is_;'-i:he_I_*efore, oiea:f__frvoI11 the above proposition of Law laid

 ' ;down~ Apex Court in Manche Gowda's ease and by

"izhis coi1f*:'jin1'S11ivappa's case that the provisions of sub-

 3_{2) of Section 4 are applicable only in respect of

A ":_ '  persons and not to others.

 §i7. As far as subsection (3) of Section 4 is concerned,

though it is stated therein that the provisions of sub-

sections (1) and (2) shall appiy to sale of any land in
}/

U .4

 



£4
execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any

award or order of any other authority, the said provision
contained in s11b---section (3) also will have to i:ze.._>read
keeping in View the interpretation gven tQ.__'4fiie:44o:'i1?or;d

"person". in other Words,
A

decree in his favour or an award' <3._r7;ors:ier" 

a person who obté§:1s._4a V' 

authority against the garttee, Vithe-._said ]c:1eeree---nh4oidie1*

cannot, in execution of the"d:ee:ree obiejned aigairist the

grantee in» his privaie. Veapacitﬁiaequire the

granted land. In otiier iziroiftisir, i-f..t1ie_~:ection to sell the

 u --by" the Government itself or
Central   'local authority or a bank, to

siie.};1'VV   "s3,11;_>_g_seetion (3) of Section 4 has no

'  __'_1'hjs View of mine is aiso supported by the

£éie«a%  this court in the case of Yeliappa Vs.

 YeiIaV§r§1,hvsupra. Speaking for the court, Raina Jois, J,

2  i{e§;s'-..'he' then was), observed that a careful reading of

AV'Seet'3'on 4(3) would Show that it will speak of sales in

execution of a decree or award or an order seeureé by

iv

' I

 



19. in another decision in the case of Honsicfzli 

Co-operative Agricultural 85 Rural Developnaent  

'Vs. The Deputy Commissioner;-' 'DazIc;n£;:zge_néi 'V:{i.;'£ 

Kaitnataka 3780), reiying    *

Shivappefs case, a iearneci single jtidgeiof hast'

held that where the  eit'tie1* conducting
public auction,  it   from the
respondents,    in favour of

the auctioii eonipetent authorities could net tieeiiiioemnission and held that Section 7 V Act cleariy exempts the apyﬁeation of the Act in respect of transfer of " hiiiiiiievour of a bank and the petitioner ..:C0A-?x(){iiCI'atiVC bank, therefore, are entitled to exempﬁonfes per Section 7 of the PTCL Act. an ...'§9_..4 Tiius, a combined effect of the view: taken by this "'..eé>'ui"t in Shivappa's ease, Yellappefs ease and aiso "Hannah Taluk Ce--operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Limi"£:ed's Case)is that the provisions ﬁr ) .1 :7 of Seeﬁon 4 ie, 4(1) to 4(3), are not applicable in respect of the eases covered by S€Cti('.)I}. 7 of the Act. Since the expression "person" in sub--sectioI1V.--(2) of Section 4 will have to be read as to mean":

person", the question of the said sub~seetieei V' Section 4 being applicable to mses. i section (7) Wili not arise. Likewie.e,'"tl'1e proafision ofisizlljs section (3) of Section 4 Vfespeetl of the decree or or<ietr._Aof or' of award obtained by the purc11asei*':ii:tz_.~hi'si.j;§i'ivate individual capaeity-. .. But, the said sub--section (3) has fie' appiieationiiiinirespect of the purchase of the latiﬁ 311 purehaserito purchase the said land ' ;CenSequei3t""to_ the eo-operative bank bringing about the u for putting up the granted land forsale. V .. as far as the contention put forward by the counsel for the appellant that Section 7 of the it HPTCL Act is applicable only in respect of the transfer of granted lands made in favour of the Government, the ¢%'/ 'J Shri R.K.Hat:ti, learned Government permitted to ﬁle memo of appearance weeks.

_ A V jwge eke/~ .-- '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court