SAKAMMA Vs. RAMAGOPAL TIBREWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2012 passed in W.P. No. 39816/2011. Review petitioner had challenged this order before the Division Bench by filing W.A. No. 8595/2012. The said writ appeal was disposed of on 12.11.2013 with the following observations:

(2.) CONTENTION now urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Judge was in error in holding that Sy. No. 32 in Block 4 of Thirumenahalli Village, Bangalore East Taluk was the land granted during the year 1946 and it was the subject matter of sale vide registered sale deed dated 18.10.1946. It is the contention of the petitioner that land in Sy. No. 32 Block 4 was indeed granted on 19.02.1955 and not prior to 1946 and it is this land that was sold in the year 1946 and therefore, the learned Judge was in error in holding that 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy. No. 32 in Block No. 4 of Thirumenahalli Village, Bangalore East Taluk was the land granted prior to 1946 and it was the said land which was sold. He asserts that the land comprised in Sy. No. 32 in Block No. 4 was granted on 19.02.1955, whereas Sy. No. 32 in Block No. 6 was granted prior to 1946.

(3.) THE best document to show which land was sold on 18.10.1946 is the sale deed executed by Hanumanthappa in favour of the purchaser in the first sale. Certified copy of the said sale deed is not produced before the Court. It is not the case pleaded that the sale deed dated 18.10.1946 does not pertain to this land. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 1 acre 28 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 32/4 was not granted in favour of petitioner prior to 1946 but he was only put in possession of the same as Saguvalidar and was cultivating the same and therefore, he could not have sold the said land without there being a grant in his favour. This submission will not in any manner improve the case of the petitioner because even if he was only put in possession of 1 acre 28 guntas of land prior to 1946 without there being a formal order of grant and by way of temporary grant it is immaterial because fact remains that he sold this land by executing a registered sale deed on 18.10.1946 in favour of first purchaser. Therefore, this Court has found that the purchaser having continued to be in possession of the property for more then 30 years has perfected his title by adverse possession. I do not find any illegality in these findings.