C H KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. MANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the learned Advocate who represents the respondents. This is a rather hotly contested litigation in respect of a plot of land namely Survey No. 60/2 measuring 5 acres 26 guntas but the real dispute concerns an area of 2 acres 20 guntas which the respondents claim to have purchased through a sale deed dated 29-10-1979. The plaintiffs case was that for the year 1991-92 the respondents got their names entered in the record of rights in respect of an area of 2 acres 20 guntas in the land and that on coming to know of this, he was required to file a suit and ask for interim relief in respect of the dispute that had arisen. It is the case of the plaintiff that this particular survey number absolutely belongs to him and he denies having alienated the whole or any part of it. The defendants on the other hand contend that the area of 2 acres 20 guntas was sold to them under registered sale deed dated 29-10-1979 and that they have been in possession of that area of the land. One of the contentions taken up by the plaintiff was that he has produced certain documents including a registered Will dated 15-3-1973 as also a school certificate on the basis of which it is his case that his date of birth is 1-6-1963. The issue raised was that assuming without admitting that the agreement was entered into in October 1979, that the plaintiff was most certainly a minor at that point of time and that therefore he was incompetent to convey the property or enter into such a transaction, the result being that the transaction will be a void one. Apart from this, what was sought to be emphasised was that if the land was in fact sold on 29-10-1979, that the entries in the revenue records would most certainly have been changed either in that year or shortly thereafter and that the defendants would not have kept quiet for a period of twelve years and allowed the entries to continue in the plaintiffs name. The Trial Court after a detailed appreciation of the material placed before it granted the injunction as asked for in respect of an area of 3 acres 6 guntas excluding the area of 2 acres 20 guntas which.the defendants claim to be in possession of. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal and the Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. It is effectively against these orders that the present revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) The principal argument canvassed by Mr. Patil on behalf of the petitioner is that the solitary source of right under which the defendants claim to be either owners or in possession of the property is the sale deed dated 29-10-1979. He states that the plaintiff had pointed out at the earliest stage when the defendants approached the Court that he had not entered into any such transaction and he submits that even assuming the Court were to look upon this statement with some degree of doubt, that the sale deed is a void transaction because the plaintiff was more certainly a minor on that date. Secondly, what he emphasises very strongly is that it was only in one year namely 1991-92 that the name of the defendants appeared in the revenue records and he points out that on coming to know of this, the plaintiff has immediately filed an appeal and that the Appellate Authority has stayed the order under which the name of the defendants had been entered. He therefore submits that on the basis of the record, both the lower Courts were certainly in error in having refused the relief as far as the area of 2 acres 20 guntas is concerned.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, their learned Advocate has challenged the maintainability of this petition. In the first instance, he submits that this is a case where an interim order has been granted by the lower Courts and that such a relief can be granted on the basis of the plaintiff making out a prima facie case. For this purpose, the Court is required to examine the material placed before it, in other words, arrive at a tentative conclusion on the basis of the appreciation of evidence. Learned Advocate submits that the Trial Court has done an elaborate exercise as far as appreciation of the material is concerned and that the view taken by the Trial Court is faultless. He also points out that the appeal Court has reviewed the entire record and has come to the same conclusion and that therefore the record presents a concurrent finding of facts. In this background it is his submission that the revisionary powers of the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C. which are circumscribed to the extent of correcting manifest errors apparent on the record or corrective action in respect of a point of law cannot be invoked as effectively the petitioner is asking this Court to reappreciate the evidence on a third occasion. Learned Advocate has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and Others v Maruti Hari Jadhav and Others, in support of his contention that on the facts of the present proceeding, this revision petition itself is barred in law. The petitioner's learned Advocate has refuted this statement because it is his case that there is no question of reappreciation of the evidence but that he has approached this Court on the basis of certain legal errors which have arisen in the record and that therefore, the revision is maintainable. I have heard the two learned Advocates at some length in this regard and there is no difficulty in holding that the revision petition is maintainable because the points raised by the petitioner's learned Advocate undoubtedly are mixed questions of fact and law but basically centre around one principle as to whether the two Courts were justified within the framework of law and the present record in refusing interim reliefs in the special facts and circumstances of this case.