SHANKARA RAO THUKARAM LAD, BY vs. IBRAHIM ALLABAX PANDHARI

PDF · subscribers
HRRP/142/1996HC KarnatakaKAHC01006507199603 April 1998Bench: VENKATESHA MURTHY.S.R23 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The tribunal held that the tenants' defense did not pertain to their rights against the landlord but rather challenged the landlord's title based on a prior trust dispute. Since the trust litigation was settled, the tenants could not use it to avoid paying rent arrears.

What were the facts?

The petitioner purchased property in an auction conducted by the Income Tax Department. The respondents, who were tenants, challenged the petitioner's title, claiming the property was part of a trust. Litigation between the trustees and the petitioner concluded in 1983, and tenants made payments thereafter but not to the full extent of the claim.

What were the issues?

Whether tenants can challenge the landlord's title based on a settled trust dispute to avoid paying rent arrears.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 21(1)(a), (h), (f) of KRC Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: HON’*BLE MR.JUSTICE $.R. VENKATESHA MURTHY

4 mx V (a •1 a 6? S ‘a bb aa CR S

S a - —2— Thippanna son of Mallappa Jambagi, Major, resident of Jamkhandi, Dist. Bijapur. RESPOPNDENT HRRP 143/96 Smt.Radhabai w/o Govind Shinde, Major k household work and business of Jamkhandi. RESPONDENT frIRRP 144/96 1. Shri. Janardhan Laxminarayana Bhat, aged 45 years, Hotel business,’ rio Jamkhandi. 2. Sri.,Govind Laxminarayan Bhat, age 40 yrs. hotel business, rio Jamkhandi. RESPONDENTS HRRP 145/96 Manohar son of Balkrishna Suryavamshi, major, 0cc. Trader of Jamkhandi. RESPONDENT HRRP 146/96 (Sri. A.V.Albal for respondent in all) HRRPs 142/96. 143/96, 144/96, 145/96 and 146/96 are filed under section 115 of CPC against the order dated 21—9-1998 passed in RRPs 44/89, 42/89, 41/89,47/89, and 43/89 respectively on the file of the 1st Addl.Dist. Judge, Bijapur, allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order passed in HRC No. 16/77, 15/77,18/77,13/77,aud 17/77 dt. 15—9-1989 by the Prl. Munsaiff, Jamkhandi, allowing the petition filed under section 21 (1)(a) (h) and (f) of KRC Act. These revisions being reserved for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER

-10- a challenge to petitioner’s title by the alleged trustees of th. property in question the trustees attacking the auction sale by the Income Tax Department in favour of the petitioner as being void. Admittedly, the litigation between the trustees and the petitioner ended some time in the year 1983 giving a quietus to the litigation. Thereafter, the respondents—tenants have made various payments in court admittedly from 1983 onwards but not making up the claim made in the notice, even at the admitted rate. 14. All the respondents-tenants were served with notices demanding arrears of rent with effect from the date of purchase by the petitioner is undisputed. The defence that was sought to be raised by the respondents-tenants did not pertain to any right asserted by them as against the petitioner—landlord. All that they contended was that the petitioner’s title to the property by reason of the purchase in the auction conducted by the Income Tax Department was invalid on account of the fact that the property was the subject of a trust created for the benefit of students belonging

V k

3.

• - . — • I. jj. — - T — - — I. - S I •• . I L J • • S. • L • 4 • .4 1 • - • ( • - — V* a a

IiIi S

4.

Ii o ft z 0 0 ft a 0 0•0 ,t< C ft pd. 5 0 0 Pd. -ç t z • 0 0 a 0 a ft ft o C 7 -% z 0 Pd a z 0 Sc cc - 0 Sc 0 C 0 ft 0 •U 0 0 C 70 0 o Sc z 0 0 z o a a ri a z a s-’• a ft 0 0 z o o Z ft Sc Pd. 0 0 0 N I Pd. ia ft ft 0 0 0 0 -ft Z a o 0 ,a ft -ft % ft 7 n Sc ft 0 0 7 b 0 0 0 Sc C 0 o 3 Pd• 3 0 ‘1 0 0 C -ft .- z ft z Pd’ ft Pd. 0 0 -‘ft 50 Pd. ft 0’ 5 0 z -ft S I-’ 0 — . —hO 0 0 0 -t Z 0 t., Sc Pd’ Pd’ 0 0 C C 0 Pd’ Sc Sc ft 0 Sc 0 o 0 ft Pd’ .0 £ C ft 50 0 0 0 3 7014. a z a o • C i’. a ft 0 0 0 0 0 a ft z C • i-s. ft o Sc 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 -4 0 5 £ ft Z 0 0 50 0 0 ‘000ft ft5 0 a Sc 0 0 0 Pd’ 0 C C Pd’ i-s. 0 0 0 z Pd. Pd. 0 o 0 O’O “C -It a ft 0 77 0 Pd’ 0 0 3 Sc • ft C Sc 0 14’ 0 0 I-’ V Pd’0ft Sc Pd’0ft (4 Ca 0 i-i 0 ft z o f40 C 0 ft a c a so 0 0 0 a 0 0 ‘C0 Sc0 Pd• 00 ‘0C •0 ft Sc Pd’ 0 0 3 0 3 •0 Pd’ 0 0 ft Z 0 0 a 0 0 £ 0 ft Pd’ C 0 ft Sc I S Sc ft 0 0 o j z o a o 0 0 z ft Sc ft 0 0 ‘00 LISP 0 Lrj 0000 Pd. 0 Pd’ I--s Pd’ • 00 0 0 Sc I— Z I-’ 0 ‘< 0 a I 0 N 0 6) Sc I £S Pd’05 00 z0ft sri 0-ft 5 Q• Pd’ 0 0 I

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →