KONDAPPA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a matter of record that respondent 4 when arraigned as respondent before the Sheristedar, in a proceeding under Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('Act' for short), did not respond to the notice and was absent, while in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, the 4th respondent, filed statement that she was a subsequent purchaser of the immovable property in question from 5th respondent-Smt. Venkatalakshmamma, whose husband had purchased the said property from one Gurappa, during the pendency of O.S. No. 449 of 1973 instituted by said Gurappa arraigning petitioner as defendant in respect of immovable property in question, and that suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17-4-1976 declining the relief of declaration that he is the owner of the immovable property in question, followed by dismissal of R.A. No. 150 of 1976 by judgment and decree dated 9-10-1979. So also, in the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, the said 4th respondent when arraigned as party respondent 1 was represented by learned Counsel.

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that 4th respondent is the purchaser of the immovable property under a sale deed executed by 5th respondent on 18-10-1985, while 5th respondent's husband purchased the said property on 20-5-1974 from Gurappa during pendency of O.S. No. 449 of 1973 filed by Gurappa for declaratory' relief over land in question arraigning petitioner as defendant and had suffered judgment and decree dated 17-4-1976 which was affirmed by dismissal of R.A. No. 150 of 1976 by judgment and decree dated 9-10-1979 and therefore, respondent 4 the purchaser pendente lite, had no subsisting right to claim title to the immovable property in question since her vendor-in-title had no right to convey. Learned Counsel submits that notice on respondent 5 in this petition is unnecessary since admittedly has no subsisting right in the property in question. In that view of the matter, service of notice on respondent 5 is held to be unnecessary.

(3.) Petitioner is said to have instituted O.S. No. 86 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, KGF arraigning one Mallappa and another Muniyappa for permanent injunction in respect of immovable property being agricultural lands in Sy. No. 39 measuring 4 acres which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 16-12-1972, Annexure-A. One Gurappa, S/o Papanna Boyi instituted O.S. No. 449 of 1973 before the Munsiff, KGF, arraigning petitioner as defendant for declaration of title to the immovable property in question. That suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17-4-1976 and affirmed by dismissal of R.A. No. 150 of 1976 by judgment and decree dated 9-10-1979, of the Additional Civil Judge, Kolar.