BAGURASHETTY Vs. HOMBALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The counsel for the appellants contend that, both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the material on record and ought to have granted the relief of declaration that the alleged sale deed is null and void and also relief of permanent injunction, since the ingredients of sale deed is not proved and the same is the essence of contract as per the law.

(3.) The counsel would contend that the said sale transaction was forbidden by law, since the land was granted in the year 1965 and during the non alienation period the same was sold on 4/5/1971 and both the Courts have also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that suit is hit by law of limitation and the very approach of both the Courts are erroneous and hence, it requires interference by invoking of Sec. 100 of CPC and to frame the substantial question of law.