citedby: 407483 doctypes: karnataka

Poovappa Moily vs Kutty Moily on 18 October, 2022

By interpreting Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as well as by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in SANGAPPA KALYANAPPA BANGI (DEAD) THROUGH LRs vs LAND TRIBUNAL, JAMKHANDI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1998 SC 3229, the Apex Court has held that execution of Will outside the family is impermissible within the meaning of Section 61 of the KLR Act.

Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Achutha Pai vs Joseph Tauro And Ors. on 19 March, 2003

So, what requires to be seen is, whether the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sangappa Bangi (supra) applies to this case and requires to be followed, or the consistent view taken by this Court in the three decisions relied on for the plaintiff has to be adopted.

Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - S B Majage - Full Document

Joseph Albert Lewis S/O Thimothy Lewis vs Michael Roque Lewis S/O Thimothy Lewis ... on 20 August, 2007

In the earlier judgment of Sangappa's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case in the background of the provision contained in Sections 21 and 24 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, which is at a stage before grant of occupancy right.

Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

K Gopal Naik S/O Late Kunthu Naika vs Shanthamma W/O Late Krishna Anantha ... on 27 June, 2012

11. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in ILR 1999 Kar. 863 [Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi Vs. Land Tribunal Jamkhandi & Others], wherein the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 1961 were taken into consideration, which reads as follows:

Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishnu S/O Irappa Ilager vs Smt.Buddavva W/O Yallappa Ilager on 26 September, 2024

In the case of Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi vs Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi10 at para 5 is held as follows:

Karnataka High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - H Sanjeevkumar - Full Document

Venkatramana S/O Narasimha Hegde vs Mahabaleshwar S/O Venkatramana Hegde on 25 March, 2025

30. Since, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and same is in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayamma (supra) and Sangappa (supra) and therefore, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is requires to be confirmed and the substantial question of law framed in RSA No.100326/2016 is in favour of the respondent herein. In view of arriving at the conclusion that, the appellants in RSA No.100326/2016 are not entitled for reliefs, consequently, same shall follow in RSA No.100458/2020.

Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narasimha vs Mahabaleshwar on 25 March, 2025

30. Since, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and same is in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayamma (supra) and Sangappa (supra) and therefore, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is requires to be confirmed and the substantial question of law framed in RSA No.100326/2016 is in favour of the respondent herein. In view of arriving at the conclusion that, the appellants in RSA No.100326/2016 are not entitled for reliefs, consequently, same shall follow in RSA No.100458/2020.

Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Basavanneppa S/O Tirakawwa Talawar vs Smt. Anasavva W/O Hanamanthappa ... on 3 July, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8350 RSA No. 100389 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 100548 of 2024 RSA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016 HC-KAR by executing the Will within period of 15 years of non- alienation period. Though the said reasoning assigned by the First Appellate Court cannot be countenanced in view of the law laid down in the case of SANGAPPA KALYANAPPA BHANGI supra and JAYAMMA supra, wherein the Apex Court analysing the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act more particularly Sections 21 and 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act imposing the restriction on alienation has laid down the law that execution of Will in favour of natural heir would not amount to alienation/ assignment violating the terms and conditions. However, even if the said finding and conclusion arrived by the First Appellate Court in the appeal in R.A.No.13/2010 filed by the defendants is set aside, in the light of the conclusion arrived by this Court on the question of Plaintiff failing to prove the execution of Will, Plaintiff cannot be held to the sole owner of the suit properties.

Karnataka High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Basavenneppa S/O Tirakawwa Talawar ... vs Kumari Shekavva Aliyas Rekha D/O ... on 3 July, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8350 RSA No. 100389 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 100548 of 2024 RSA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016 HC-KAR by executing the Will within period of 15 years of non- alienation period. Though the said reasoning assigned by the First Appellate Court cannot be countenanced in view of the law laid down in the case of SANGAPPA KALYANAPPA BHANGI supra and JAYAMMA supra, wherein the Apex Court analysing the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act more particularly Sections 21 and 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act imposing the restriction on alienation has laid down the law that execution of Will in favour of natural heir would not amount to alienation/ assignment violating the terms and conditions. However, even if the said finding and conclusion arrived by the First Appellate Court in the appeal in R.A.No.13/2010 filed by the defendants is set aside, in the light of the conclusion arrived by this Court on the question of Plaintiff failing to prove the execution of Will, Plaintiff cannot be held to the sole owner of the suit properties.

Karnataka High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Smt. Anasavva W/O Hanamanthappa ... vs Basavanneppa S/O Tirakawwa Talawar on 3 July, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8350 RSA No. 100389 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 100548 of 2024 RSA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016 HC-KAR by executing the Will within period of 15 years of non- alienation period. Though the said reasoning assigned by the First Appellate Court cannot be countenanced in view of the law laid down in the case of SANGAPPA KALYANAPPA BHANGI supra and JAYAMMA supra, wherein the Apex Court analysing the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act more particularly Sections 21 and 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act imposing the restriction on alienation has laid down the law that execution of Will in favour of natural heir would not amount to alienation/ assignment violating the terms and conditions. However, even if the said finding and conclusion arrived by the First Appellate Court in the appeal in R.A.No.13/2010 filed by the defendants is set aside, in the light of the conclusion arrived by this Court on the question of Plaintiff failing to prove the execution of Will, Plaintiff cannot be held to the sole owner of the suit properties.

Karnataka High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results