Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 25 -

NC: 2024:KHC:12527 Therefore, the Court ought to have followed the principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satheedevi vs. Prasanna and another1. (This judgment do not pertain to the Trusts)

b) He further contended that the Partnership Deed entered into between the appellants and the respondent No.1 is void under Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and at the same time, the document is also void, as all the Trustees did not join as contemplated under Section 48 of the Indian Trust Act. Once there is a prohibition to have a transaction with respect to the agricultural lands and the Partnership itself is formed without validity under law, all the transactions subsequent to the Partnership Agreement and documents executed in pursuance to the same are void under law. To contend that the transaction in violation of Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is void, he AIR 2010 SC 2777

q) It is contended that when the plaintiffs had taken their specific contentions that the Partnership is void and it is hit by Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and under Section 48 of the Indian Trust Act, it was necessary for the Trial Court to frame an appropriate issue. No such issues were framed by the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court has to frame an issue as required under Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC and 2013 (15) SCC 27

39. The third contention is that, the suit schedule properties are hit by Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the Trust as well as the Partnership

- 69 -

NC: 2024:KHC:12527 Firm (defendants No. 1 and 2) could not have acquired or held any agricultural properties. Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as stood repealed in the year 2020. Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as it existed, reads as below:-

43. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to hold and appreciate that the Partnership Firm could not have held the suit schedule properties since it is continued to be the agricultural properties and hit by provision of Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Therefore, none of the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellants which lay down that the Partnership Firm could not have possessed any agricultural properties, as it would be hit by Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, would be of any relevance. The properties were ceased to be an agricultural properties when the partnership was constituted.