Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.12 seconds)
Sri. G.Venkatesh vs Smt. Munilakshmamma on 11 January, 2016 cites

Mrs. Sushila A. Dass vs Mrs. Mary Boiger on 14 March, 1988

23. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in his arguments relied upon three decisions in support of Sec.79A and B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act i.e., 1988(1) KLJ 563, 2005 AIR SCW 4789 and 1979 SC page 653 and relying upon these decisions. The counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that in view of division bench decision of Karnataka High Court, wherein there is specific provision contained in Sec.83 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act to go into 49 OS. No.4989 of 2007 the aspect of validity of agreement and as per Sec.83 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1974, there is prescribed authority as constituted under the said Act to hold an enquiry regarding illegal transaction in violation of the provision of Sec.79 A and B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. But this Civil Court has no authority to hold an enquiry regarding the permission to be obtained from the competent authority in order to purchase agricultural land by non agriculturist and hence, learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of additional Issue No.1 relying upon these two decisions submitted that in view of the decision rendered by Karnataka High Court reported in 1988(1) K.L.J. 563, wherein in this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has held ratio that Civil Court will not come in the way of to hold an enquiry regarding the validity of agreement in respect of non obtaining of permission under Sec. 79 A and B. After hearing the arguments of both sides, wherein the defendants have taken up this contention in para No.2(3) of their written statement contending that the agreement Ex.P.1 is void in view in view of bar created under Sec. 79A and B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. After considering the citations rendered by the plaintiff herein, wherein our own High Court in a decision reported in KLJ 1988(1) page 563 in the case of Mrs. Sushila A Dass Vs. Mrs. Mary Bolger , wherein in this decision, Sec.90(b) and also Sec.79A and B has been clearly 50 OS. No.4989 of 2007 discussed along with Sec.20 of Specific Relief Act, wherein in this decision, Sec.79 A and B, Sec.80 and 83 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act have been discussed, wherein as per Sec.83, there is prescribed authority constitutes under the Act vested with power under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to examine the legality of the transaction and it is not the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to go into the aspect of that matter. However, the defendants have taken specific contention raising bar by the plaintiff to enter into contract as he being the non agriculturist.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next