SMT K S SWARNAMBA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Smt Kavitha H C, learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Petitioners have questioned the validity of the order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar,

4 Chikkaballapur Taluk and order passed in Misc.A.No.4/2014 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur 17.12.2020 vide Annexures - G and H respectively insofar as land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk measuring 7 acres 28 and further sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar to regrant land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk measuring 7 acres 28 guntas in favour of petitioners.

5 to the Shanbhoge Inmathi Land read with The Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘KVOA Act, 1961’ for short). Petitioners have sought for regrant of the aforesaid lands. They had filed Misc.A. No.13/2010 before the District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura. It was allowed and order of the Tahsildar dated 08.03.2010 was set-aside while remitting the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal with a direction to provide opportunity to the respective parties for adducing their evidence and further to pass appropriate orders. Sri M Venkatesh and Smt Sowmya Muniraju filed impleading application in M.A.13/10 which was dismissed. The Tahsildar, Chikkaballapur pursuant to the directions passed in M.A.13/2010, regranted the land in Sy.No.161 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas of Mustoor Village, Sy. No.73 measuring 0.30 guntas out of total 1 acre 20 guntas of Ganganamidde Village in favour of the petitioners whereas Tahsildar has not regranted the land in Sy.No.267 measuring 7 acres 28 guntas of Mustoor Village. Thus, they preferred Appeal No.04/2014 and sought for setting- aside the order of the Tahsildar and further, sought for regrant of land in favour of successors for the holder of office and respondent - Tahsildar erred in not granting the land in favour of

6 the petitioners. In terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the KVOA Act, 1961 stipulates… “any transfer of land in contribution of sub-section (3) shall be null and void and liable to be forfeited”. The Tahsildar is not authorised to pass order in favour of Sri M.Venkatesh and Smt.Sowmya Muniraju - respondent Nos.4 and 5. As per the alleged sale deeds the order passed by the Tahsildar in respect of Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village is illegal, incorrect and opposed to law. The vendors of Mr.C.R.Krishnappa, Mr Chittarada Narayanappa are not the authorised holders of Village Offices attached to Mustoor Vilage and the transaction of unauthorised holder is void and further, sought for allowing the appeal by setting-aside the order of the Tahsildar and further, sought for a direction to the Tahsildar to restore the land in Sy.No.267 measuring 7 acres 28 guntas of Mustoor Village in favour of petitioners. M.A.No.4/2014 was dismissed on 17.12.2020 by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura. Thus, petitioners have presented this petition seeking quashing of the order of Tahsildar and order passed in M.A.No.4/2014.

7 measuring 7 acres 28 guntas is a Shanbogie service inam land of Ganganamidde Firka Office and one Sri Venkatasubbaiah was the Shanbogie holder of office. Petitioners are the legal heirs and successors of Sri Venkatasubbaiah. Sri Venkatasubbaiah died leaving behind his only daughter viz., Smt.Kaveramma, who was minor at the relevant point of time. Therefore, Sri K Srikantaiah s/o Appajiah was looking after the affairs of the aforesaid property. As and when Smt.Kaveramma attained major, she filed O.S.No.407/1922-23 before the Munsiff Court, Chickballapur against Sri K Srikantaiah seeking for declaration of her title to the properties and for possession of the same and Sri. K. Srikantaiah filed O.S. No.94/1923-24 before the Munsiff Court, Chickballapur against Smt.Kaveramma and her husband Sri M Srikantaiah for declaration that he was entitled for residential house and possession thereof and also sought for recovery of Rs.65/- alleged to have been paid to Smt.Kaveramma and her husband by mistake.

8 Bengaluru questioning the validity of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.407/1922-23 and O.S. No.94/1923-24. Both the Regular Appeals came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.407/1922-23 and O.S. No.94/1923-24 on 21.09.1933 whereas Sri K Srikantaiah s/o Apajaiah’s case is that there was partition in respect of subject land measuring 3 acres 33½ guntas which was allotted to the share of K Subbaramaiah. Such partition took place on 26.03.1962. Consequently, K Subbaramaiah executed sale deed in favour of Chittarada Narayanappa on 27.05.1965 to the extent of 3 acres 33½ guntas. On 13.12.1966 M.Srikantaiah filed an application before the Tahsildar, Chickaballapura for regrant of inam land in Sy.No.161 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas and in Sy.No.267 measuring 7 acres 28 guntas of Mustoor Village and in Sy.No.73 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Gangamidde Village whereas on 29.04.1968 M.Srikantaiah executed a sale deed in favour of one C R Krishnappa to the extent of 3 acres 33½ guntas.

9 Sy.No.73 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Ganganamidde Village on the score that there was alienation of service inam land. Khatha was issued in the name of Sri C R Krishnappa to the extent of 3 acres 33½ guntas of Mustoor Village in Sy.No.267 pursuant to the land sold by Mr.M Srikantaiah (29.04.1968) vide RRTCR 208/96-97 in M.R.No.8 dated 20/02/1997. Similarly, khatha was made in favour of Sri C N Venkatesh to the extent of 3 acres 33½ guntas in Sy.No.267 pursuant to the sale transaction by Sri K Subbaramaiah on 20.02.1997 in RRTCR 209/96-97 in M.R.No.8. Faced with these facts a registered gift deed was executed by Sri C R Krishnappa s/o C Ramakrishnappa in favour of his daughter Smt C K Shantha w/o M Venkatesh in respect of 3 acres in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village. Further, there was a sale transaction among Sri C N Venkatesh s/o Chittarada Narayanappa in favour of Smt. C K Shanta to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village. Further Sri C N Venkatesh s/o Chittara Narayanappa sold the property in favour of one M.Venkatesh s/o Muniyappa to an extent of 1 acre 33.08 guntas in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village and further, a gift deed was executed by C.R. Krishnappa s/o C Ramakrishnappa in favour of Smt C K Shantha w/o M Venkatesh to an extent of

10 33.08 guntas in Sy. No.267 of Mustoor Village. In this backdrop, Smt C K Shantha filed application for conversion of land in Sy.No.267 totally measuring 5 acres 33.08 guntas for non- agricultural residential purpose before the Tahsildar, Chickaballapura Taluk, Kolar District on 22.02.2007. Similarly, Sri M Venkatesh S/o Muniyappa filed an application for conversion of land to an extent of 1 acre 33.08 guntas in Sy.No 267 of Mustoor Village before the Tahsildar on 27.02.2007. Petitioner and others who were the grandchildren of Smt.Kaveramma filed objections through their counsel before the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District that Sri M Venkatesh and Smt C K Shanta were not entitled for conversion of land in Sy.No.267 as sought by them in their respective application. The Deputy Commissioner passed orders in favour of Sri M Venkatesh and Smt C Shantha on their respective application for conversion of land on 20.08.2007 and 04.11.2009. In this background, petitioner No.5 - Sri K S Ravindranath, grandson of Smt.Kaveramma filed application for re-grant of land in Sy.No.267 measuring 7 acres 27 guntas and in Sy.No.161 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of Mustoor Village and land bearing Sy.No.73 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Ganganamidde Village

11 for which Tahsildar issued endorsement on 08.03.2010 stating that State Government has forfeited the land on 19.12.1983 vide No.HOA/3/SHA/23/1971-72 conferring title on Smt.C K Shantha and Sri M Venkatesh while directing petitioner No.2 to file an appeal. Thus, M.A.13/10 came to be filed against the order dated 19.12.1983 and order dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Tahsildar and both orders were set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal on 22.03.2012 in M.A.13/2010.

13 Ganganamidde Village in favour of the petitioners herein is in order whereas, Tahsildar failed to re-grant land in respect of Sy.No.267 in favour of the petitioners. In the absence of order of re-grant to the successors of holder of office while conferring land to the alienees is illegal. The Tahsildar ignored the consequence of alienation of the service inam land prior to regrant of land in question so also Appellate Court in M.A.4/2014 passed an order conferring title on respondents 3 and 4 on the wrong presumption that the land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village had already been re-granted in favour of petitioner No.1 - Smt K S Swarnamba in respect of northern half portion measuring 3 acres 33½ guntas of Mustoor Village and in the name of Sri K Subbaramaiah s/o K Srikantaiah to the southern half portion measuring 3 acres 33½ guntas in the said Sy.no 267 of Mustoor Village. It is submitted that at the relevant point of time land was neither re-granted to the petitioner nor to Sri K Subbaramaiah. Appellate Court has failed to take note of the fact that land not being re-granted to the original holder of inam land, the question of conferring title on the subsequent alienees would not arise and the doctrine of “feeding the grant by estoppel” under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882

14 is not attracted to respondents 3 and 4. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure - H is liable to be set-aside.

15 modifying the order of the Tahsildar. On these grounds, the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside.

16 commencement of the Amended Act 22 of 2003. He relied on Sub-section (3) of Section 5 read with Section 7A of KVOA Act, 1961.

17 the impugned order of the Tahsildar read with the order passed in M.A. No.4/2014. He has pointed out Annexure - R5 relating to sale deed dated 29.04.1968 executed by Sri M Srikantaiah and Smt K S Swarnamba in favour of Sri C R Krishnappa. Further, he has pointed out application dated 13.12.1966 for re- grant of inamti land vide Annexure - R-8 to point out that 7 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor village has been bifurcated to the extent of half share. Further, he has also pointed Annexure -R9 Irsalu patti (Assessment Tax) which reveals only half of hissa in favour of Sri M.Srikantaiah. Further, he pointed out Annexure R10 which is a communication made by Mr.M Srikantaiah to the Assistant Commissioner wherein he has specifically stated that in Sy.No.267 he had half hissa right. In this regard he is stated to have remitted tax. These documents are evident that there were certain transactions in respect of 7 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.267. Land was bifurcated into half share and subsequently, half of the share has been sold.

18 Ramakrishnappa. Therefore, it is evident that there was bifurcation in Sy.No.267 to the extent of half hissa. Consequently, petitioners contention that they were entitled for re-grant of 7 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.267 is impermissible. Petitioners have suppressed the above documents and dates and events that there was bifurcation of land in Sy.No.267. Petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. On that ground also, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

19 2. HARI NARAIB VS BADRI DAS reported in AIR 1963 AIR (SC) 1558 3. S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY L.Rs VS JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY L.Rs AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 4. PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. VS STATE BANK OF INDIA reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 5. K.D. SHARMA VS STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 6. OSWAL FATS AND OILS LIMITED VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION), BAREILLY DIVISION, BAREILLY AND OTHERS reported in 2010 (4) SCC 728 7. RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS FURU RAM AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 8 SCC 613 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners while countering the arguments of the respondents, submitted that one Sri.Venkatasubbaiah was the Shanbhogue and holder of the Village Office and he was holding the ‘Shanbhogue Inamthi land’ in respect of Sy.No.267 to the extent of 7 acres 27 guntas and similarly in Sy.No.161 to the extent of 1 acre 14 guntas of Mustoor Village and in Ganganamidde Village in Sy.No.73 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. Smt.Kaveramma is the daughter of Sri.Venkatasubbaiah who succeeded the office of Shanbhogue service, since Smt.Kaveramma was a minor, one Sri.K.Srikantaiah - nephew of Sri.Venkatasubbaiah was looking

20 after the properties of Shanbhogue Venkatasubbaiah. Smt.Kaveramma filed O.S.No.407/1922-23 in which she has sought for possession of lands in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village and suit was decreed while directing Sri.K.Srikantiah to deliver possession of property. Sri.K.Srikantiah filed R.A.No.52/1927-28 before the High Court against the decree passed in O.S.No.407/1922-1923 was also dismissed. Smt.Kaveramma died and petitioners’ being legal heirs and successors of late Sri.Venkatasubbaiah and Smt.Kaveramma are entitled for re-grant of land. Sri.K.Srikantiah who had no manner of right, title and ownership, illegally entered into partition deed on 26.03.1962 based on which 3 acres 33 ½ guntas of Sy.No.267 was shown to have been allotted to Sri.K.Subbaramaiah S/o.Sri.K.Srikantiah. Sri.K.Subbaramaiah executed sale deed on 27.05.1965 in favour of one Sri.Chikkanarayanappa to an extent of 3 acres and 33½ guntas in Sy.No.267. 18. When things stood thus, legal heirs and successors of Sri.Venkatasubbaiah and Smt.Kaveramma filed application before respondent No.2 seeking re-grant of lands in Sy.Nos.267 and 161 of Mustoor Village and Sy.No. 73 of Ganganamidde Village on 21.11.2009 for which the Tahsildar issued an

21 endorsement stating that the lands were forfeited to the Government in terms of the order dated 19.12.1983 on the score that the lands were alienated contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 on 08.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar, Misc.Appeal No.13/2010 was filed by petitioners herein before the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur and it was allowed on 22.03.2012 while remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. In the meantime, the purchasers of land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village had got the land mutated in their names subsequent to the lands forfeited by respondent No.2. Mutation proceedings were subjected in R.A.No.90-93/2009-10 before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur whereas on 06.03.2014 Tahasildar conferred title of the subject land in Sy.No.267 on respondent Nos.3 and 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 06.03.2014, petitioners preferred M.A.No.4/2014 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura, who by his order dated 17.12.2020 modified the order of Tahsildar conferring title on respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village. Thus, petitioners feeling aggrieved

22 by the orders of the Tahasildar dated 06.03.2014 and the order passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikaballapura in M.A.No.4/2014 dated 17.12.2020, have filed the present writ petition. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended as follows:- "i. The Appellate court conferred title on R3 and R4 on the presumption that the land in Sy No.267 has already been re-granted in the name of the Petitioner No.1 in respect of northern portion measuring 3 acres 33 ½ guntas and remaining in the name of K Sibbaramaiah in respect of southern portion. ii. The land has never been re-granted and without re-grant of land to original holders of inam land question of conferring title on subsequent alienees would not arise and doctrine of ‘feeding the grant by estoppel’ did not apply to the case on hand. iii. Title has been conferred on the bass of alleged sale deeds and gift deeds, which are illegal. iv. The Petitioners have filed RA 90- 93/2009-10 before the Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapura district challenging the mutation of lands in favour of purchasers, which were allowed on 21.1.2013.

23 v. Section 5(4) of the Karnataka Village Abolition Act, provides for forfeiture of lands and to vest them in the State Government; vi. The Karnataka Village offices Abolition (amendment) restricts transfer or acquiring of land for a period of 15 years from the date of re-grant made. vii. The Appellate court has erroneously conferred the title on R3 and R4, on the basis of alleged sale deeds and gift deeds executed viii. In the absence of a re-grant order the Tahsildar could not have conferred the title on R3 and R4.” 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that O.S.No.407/1922-23 filed by Smt.Kaveramma against Sri.K.Srikantaiah for possession of lands is a compromise decree (Razima Decree in 1927-1928). In the result, the land in Sy.No.267 was divided into two parts wherein northern half portion was given to Smt.Kaveramma and southern half portion was given to Sri.K.Srikantaiah. On 26.03.1962, Sri.K.Srikantaiah effected a partition deed and half of the share in Sy.No.267 was allotted in favour of his son Sri.K.Subbaramaiah. In turn, Sri.K.Subbaramaiah sold the land in Sy.No.267 (3 acres and 33½ guntas) in favour of one Sri.Chikkanarayanappa. After the death of

24 Sri.Chikkanarayanappa, on 02.05.2002 his son Sri.C.N.Venkatesh sold 2 acres to Smt.C.K.Shantha - respondent No.3 out of 3 acres and 33½ guntas. The remaining 1 acre 33½ guntas was sold to one Sri.M.Venkatesh - respondent No.4 on 02.05.2002 itself. It is submitted that Smt.C.K.Shantha is the wife of Sri.M.Venkatesh. At this juncture, it is to be noted that Smt.Kaveramma was the wife of Sri.M.Srikantaiah and Smt.K.S.Swarnambha is their daughter. Sri.M.Srikantaiah and Smt.K.S.Swarnambha sold 3 acres 34 guntas to one Sri.C.R.Krishnappa on 29.04.1968 where as Sri.C.R.Krishnappa executed a gift deed in favour of Smt.C.K.Shantha - respondent No.3 on 26.05.1999 and 31.03.2003. Thus, respondent Nos.3 and 4 became the absolute owners of 7 acres and 33 ½ guntas in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village as on 31.03.2003 which is the date on which gift deed was executed. On 13.12.1996, application was filed by Sri.M.Srikantaiah for re-grant of half share in Sy.No.267 vide Annexure-R8. Sri.M.Srikantaiah had deposited 15 years land revenue claiming for half share in Sy.No.267 on 26.04.1968 vide Annexure-R9. Sri M Srikantaiah and another had already disposed portion of land in Sy.No.267. Therefore, his claim ought to have been restricted to remaining

25 half of the land in Sy.No.267. Application filed by Sri.M.Srikantaiah under Rule 5 of The Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1961) for regrant of Inamti lands dated 13.12.1966 is restricted to half of the share in Sy.No.267 and not in respect of 7 acres 28 guntas. Further, it is contended that the application dated 21.11.2009 is barred by law of limitation as there is delay of 42 years. It is also submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were not arrayed as parties in M.A.No.13/2010 and it is further contended that it is settled principle of law that “No provision to evict alienee under alienation made during the period from 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 as per Section 7 of Act, 1961 is applicable and such alienee is not ‘unauthorised holder’.” In view of the above facts and circumstances, petitioners have not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and have suppressed certain material information. Respondent No.2 - Tahsildar and III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur have passed just and proper order which does not call for interference at the hands of this Hon’ble Court. 21. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

26 Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5. 22. The order of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura dated 17.12.2020 passed in M.A.No.04/2014 at Annexure-H are assailed by the petitioners insofar as Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk measuring 7 acres 28 in this petition. 23. The lis relates to land bearing Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk, measuring 7 acres 28 guntas (herein after for brevity referred to as Sy.No.267). The aforesaid land is a Shanbhog Service Inam land. Sri.M.Srikantaiah had filed an application for re-grant of Inamthi lands on 13.12.1966 before respondent No.2 herein and such application was rejected on 19.12.1983. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed and it was numbered as M.A.No.16/1984 before the District Judge at Kolar which was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.1992. Writ Petition filed questioning the

27 dismissal of M.A.No.16/1984 in W.P.No.10798/1993 before this Honb’le Court also was dismissed on 08.06.1993. Consequently, Writ Appeal preferred as W.A.No.3770/1995 was allowed vide order dated 13.01.1998 by setting aside the order dated 19.12.1983 of respondent No.2 and matter was remitted to respondent No.2 for afresh consideration. Petitioners filed another application before respondent No.2 on 21.11.2009 seeking re-grant of land and it was numbered as HOA/CR/35/2009-10 which came to be rejected vide endorsement dated 08.03.2010. Petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.13/2010 before the District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapur and it was allowed vide order dated 22.03.2012 by remitting the matter to respondent No.2 for afresh enquiry. Respondent No.2 after due enquiry passed an order in the original file bearing No.HOA/SHA/23/1971-72 dated 06.03.2014 rejecting the claims of the petitioners for re-grant of land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village while allowing the claim of the petitioners in respect of land bearing Sy.No.161 of Mustoor Village and land in Sy.No.73 of Ganganamidde Village.

28 Petitioners preferred M.A.No.04/2014 before the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura in respect of land bearing Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village measuring 7 acres 28 guntas. The said appeal came to be allowed in part by order dated 17.12.2020 modifying the order passed by respondent No.2-Tahsildar in No.HOA/SHA/23/1971-72 and confirming the title of respondent Nos.3 and 4 (purchasers) i.e. Smt. C K Shantha and Sri M Venkatesh in respect of land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village, Chikkaballapura Taluk. 24. The facts in brief argued by the counsel for petitioners is that one Sri.Venkatasubbaiah was the Shanbhog and holder of office of Ganganamidde Firka office, Chikkaballapura Taluk. He died leaving behind his daughter Smt.Kaveramma who was then a minor. The office of Shanbhog was taken over by one Sri.K.Srikantaiah. As disputes arose, Smt.Kaveramma filed O.S.No.407/1922-23 and Sri.K.Srikantaiah filed O.S.No.94/1922-23 in respect of properties including Sy.No.267 before the Munsiff Court, Chikkaballapura. O.S.No.407/1922-23 was decreed and suit

29 filed by Sri.K.Srikantaiah was dismissed. Appeals in R.A.Nos.29 and 52/1927-28 filed before the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore were also dismissed. Smt.Kaveramma died and petitioners being the legal heirs and successors were entitled and therefore, applied for re-grant of the land under Section 5 of the Act, 1961. 25. Sri.K.Srikantaiah who had no manner of right, title or ownership illegally had entered into a partition deed dated 26.03.1962 amongst himself and his children. On the basis of the aforesaid partition, Sri.K.Subbramaiah S/o.K.Srikantaiah had executed the sale deed for the northern half portion of land measuring 3 acres 33½ guntas vide registered sale deed dated 27.05.1965 in favour of one Sri.Chikkanarayanappa. 26. Petitioners being the heirs and successors of Shanbhog Venkatasubbaiah have sought for re-grant of the total extent of 7 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village. Respondent No.2-Tahsildar vide Annexure-G has though rightly re-granted land in Sy.No.161 of Mustoor

30 Village and Sy.No.73 of Ganganamidde Village in favour of petitioners, has erroneously re-granted Sy.No.267 in respect of respondent Nos.3 and 4 i.e., Smt C K Shantha and Sri M Venkatesh. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed M.A.No.4/2014 before the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1961. The learned District Judge vide order dated 17.12.2020 has allowed the appeal-in-part and modified the order vide Annexure-G. 27. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has filed statement of objections along with documents vide Annexures R1 to R12. It is his case that the petitioners were never the owners of the whole extent of Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village.

In terms of the order in O.S.No.407/1922-23 the northern half portion i.e. 3 acres 33½ guntas was allotted to the share of K.Srikantaiah and the southern half portion in favour of Smt.Kaveramma. Husband of Smt.Kaveramma was M.Srikantaiah. As the names were identical except initials insofar as “Srikantiah”,

31 the same was taken disadvantage by the petitioners. In order to buttress his claim, respondent no.4 has relied on Annexures-R5, R8, R9 and R10. He further states that Sri.K.Subbaramaiah S/o. K.Srikantaiah had executed a sale deed dated 27.05.1965 vide Annexure-R2. Sri.M.Srikantaiah and his daughter Smt.K.S.Swarnamba (petitioner No.1 herein) had executed a sale deed dated 29.04.1968 for the southern half portion in favour of Sri.C.R.Krishnappa. The aforesaid factual aspect is suppressed by the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners had no rights in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village. If the land is alienated within the time limit stipulated by the Act, 1961 i.e. between 01.02.1963 to 07.08.1978, in that event, beneficiary will be the alienor, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Bhasheer Ahamed supra(para.30). As such the sale deeds are valid and the right of re-grant accrues to the purchasers. He has also relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Laksmanagowda supra (Para.108). It is further argued that the respondents being the alienees rightfully sought for re-grant in their

32 favour. The order of respondent No.2 at Annexure-G and that of the Appellate Court at Annexure-H are in consonance with the factual and legal aspects and sought for dismissal of the petition with heavy costs. 28. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5 have adopted the statement of objections filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and further argued that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed material information before all the legal forums and are therefore disentitled for any reliefs before this Hon’ble Court. It is their case that the petitioners have sold their southern half portion vide sale deed dated 29.04.1968 Annexure-R5. The sale deed does not find any mention in this petition. The aforesaid fact is deliberately not revealed. Petitioner No.1 is a party to the sale deed. In spite of the same, a bare perusal of the petition averments would show that an attempt is made to imply that the petitioners are the owners of the complete extent in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village. The aforesaid fact clearly establish restraint of

33 material facts to gain wrongfully. The petitioners have not approached this Court dirt free and therefore have disentitled themselves from getting any relief from this Court. It is further argued that respondents have purchased the property for valuable consideration through valid sale deeds. The alienations also have taken place during the period stipulated i.e., 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978 in terms of Lakshman Gowda’s case (supra). They have supported the order passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G and the order passed in M.A.No.4/2014 vide Annexure-H. The orders as per respondents are legal, valid and are in accordance with law and the various orders of this Hon’ble Court. 29. The learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order passed by the Tahsildar-respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G as being proper and lawful. However Respondents-State have not questioned the modified impugned order, vide Annexure H.

34 30. Core of the matter is, “Whether petitioners are entitled for regrant of land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk measuring 7 acres 28 guntas or not?” 31. In order to appraise the claim of the petitioners two documents need to be taken note of and examined viz., (1) Annexure-R2, sale deed dated 27.05.1965 executed by Sri.K.Subbaramiah S/o. K.Srikantaiah in favour of one Sri.Chikkanarayanappa for the southern half portion in Sy.No.267 measuring 3 acres 33 ½ guntas and (2) Annexure-R5 sale deed dated 29.04.1968 executed by Sri.M.Srikantaiah and his daughter K.S.Swarnambha in favour of one Sri.C.R.Krishnappa for the northern half portion in Sy.No.267 measuring 3 acres 34 guntas. Bare perusal of the documents would demonstrate that the sale deeds are registered documents and the total extent of land in Sy.No.267 has been sold for valuable consideration. 32. Annexure-R2-Sale deed dated 27.05.1965 which is a registered document is not questioned by the petitioners for the last 55 years. Merely disputing the

35 document as illegal would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. It is also not their case that they were not aware of the aforesaid document so as to contend that the document is not valid in the eye of law. The petitioners have no right in respect of southern half portion in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village. 33. As regards, Annexure-R5-Sale deed dated 29.04.1968, petitioner No.1 is a signatory along with her father but the document does not find a mention in the petition averments. When confronted by the respondents in their objection, the same is also not denied by filing rejoinder. A bare perusal of the recitals in the document would show that they became the owners to the northern half of Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village through a Decree passed in O.S.No.407/1922-23. In the schedule, the southern half portion is shown as belonging to Sri.K.Subbaramiah. Along with these, a perusal of Annexure R8 - the re-grant application filed by Sri.M.Srikantaiah dated 13.12.1966 for half portion in Sy.No.267, Annexure

36 R-9 relates to deposit of 15 years land revenue for half share in Sy.No.267, Annexure R10 - letter addressed to Sub-Divisional Assistant Commissioner claiming right to half share in Sy.No.267 and Annexure R11 - wherein the petitioner No.1 on oath on 19.10.1983 before the Tahsildar admits sale of half share in Sy.No.267 belonging to them in favour of C.R.Krishnappa. All these documents clearly demonstrate that the family of the petitioners were only owners of the northern half portion which was sold by them for valuable consideration vide sale deed dated 29.04.1968. As such, the petitioners are no more the owners of any extent in Sy.No.267 having any subsisting right except for being the erstwhile inamdhars/owners. The claim of petitioners of ownership in respect of Sy.No.267 is without substance and untenable. 34. Respondents 3 to 5 are present owners of Sy.No.267 through various sale and gift deeds which are not disputed and not challenged before any fora. The orginal sale proceedings took place vide sale deeds dated 27.05.1965 and 29.04.1968 within the period 01.02.1963

37 and 07.08.1978 as stipulated by Act, 1961 read with Full Bench decision of this Court in Syed Bhasheer Ahamed(supra) The sale deeds are valid and right of re- grant accrues to the purchaser/alienee. 35. In view of the above analysis of the case, persual of the orders at Annexure-G and H would be necessary. The learned appellate court has rightly appreciated all the facts and applied its mind to the legalities involved. The Court below has taken note of various judgements mentioned supra amongst other decisions. Judgment dated 17.12.2020 of the Appellate Court is in accordance with law. The order of the Tahsildar - 2nd respondent is also in order except for re-grant being made directly in favour of the alienees instead of the inamdhars first and then on the principle of ‘feeding the grant of estoppel’ under Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which enure to the benefit of alienees. The said issue has been set right by the Appellate Court. The litigation is in vogue for the past five decades and would serve no purpose if the matter is remanded on mere

38 technicalities. It would be better to put quietus to the litigations/proceedings, while invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 36. Petitioners conduct to be taken note of is that they have deliberately suppressed the sale deed dated 29.04.1968 (Annexure R5) and blatantly claim ownership of 7 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village when they were only owners of northern half portion. The aforesaid fact clearly establish suppression of material information to gain wrongfully. 37. The advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 5 have cited few judgements pertaining to suppression of material facts:- 1. In (1917)1 KB 486 - THE KING V/S. THE GENERAL COMMISSIONER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX ACTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENSINGTON: It has been held there in as follows:- “It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicanty comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte

39 statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts-facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it-the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement”. 2. In AIR 1994 SC 853- S.P.CHENGALRAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS V/S JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS para 8, The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Exhibit B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the

40 appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. 3. In 2007 (8) SCC 449 - PRESTIGE LIGHTS LIMITED V/s STATE BANK OF INDIA para 34: It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 4. In (2008) 12 SCC 481 - K.D. SHARMA V/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD AND OTHERS, Para 26: A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or

41 attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. 5. In 2010 (4) SCC 728- OSWAL FATS AND OILS LTD. V/S. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION), BAREILLY DIVISION, BAREILLY AND OTHERS para 15, It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. 38. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by various fora in the case on hand, it is crystal clear that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed material information (Annexure - R-5) to gain wrongfully. They have not approached the second respondent, the appellate court

42 and this Court dirt free. They have deliberately suppressed the sale deed executed by them, blatantly laid claim to 7 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.267 of Mustoor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk measuring 7 acres 28 guntas when it is not legally permissible. At this stage the sale deed is sought to be brought to the notice of this Court in the form of a synopsis of events which is not appreciable and acceptable. 39. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The order of the III Addl District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura dated 17.12.2020 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2014 is confirmed. (ii) Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Brn