Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)Syed Zaheer S/O Late Syed Mahaboob vs C V Siddaveerappa S/O C M Veerabhadrappa ... on 18 December, 2009
16. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in
Parvatagouda Ninganagouda Patil and others Vs
Guddappa and another2 and Syed Zaheer Vs C V
Siddveerappa3 and contended that the Division Bench of this
Court in both these judgments categorically held that execution
of the agreement of sale within the period of restriction
contained under Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
would not invalidate the document. It is interpreted that what
is barred under Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, is
only the transfer of land either by way of sale, gift, exchange,
mortgage, lease or assignment. Ex.P1 does not fall under any
of these categories. The sale deed is not executed by the
defendants. Under such circumstances, the finding of the First
Appellate Court is just and proper and prays for dismissal of the
appeal as devoid of merits.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
Parvatagouda Ninganagouda Patil vs Guddappa S/O Kallappa Kallapur on 26 August, 2008
27. Ex.D1 is the grant certificate issued by the
Tahsildar, Holenarasipura Taluk in favour of defendant No.1.
Therefore, it is a grant under Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964. As per clause-7 of the grant certificate, there is bar for
alienation of the property for a period of 15 years from the date
of grant certificate i.e., from 27.12.1978. The law laid down by
the Division Bench of this Court in Parvatagouda (supra), the
agreement to sell does not amount to transfer of interest or
right in the property and entering into an agreement for sale
will not amount to alienation. Thus, there is no violation of any
of the conditions contained in Ex.D1. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that the said finding of the Trial Court on issue No.3 is
not just and proper and it is perverse and not based on any
materials. The First Appellate Court on proper appreciation of
the materials on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. I do
not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the
substantial question of law is to be answered in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1