DEVI DEVARAJKAR Vs. JOHN P JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 30.08.1999 passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District in O.S.No.390/1992 and the judgment and decree, dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Bengaluru Rural District in R.A.No.156/1999. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit proceedings.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit schedule property was granted to Sri Basha Sab, S/o Buden Sab, by the Tahsildar, Hoskote on 30.05.1969 on payment of upset price of Rs.400/-. The saguvali chit (grant certificate) was also issued to the said Basha Sab on 13.03.1973. The entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property were mutated in favour of the said Sri Basha Sab. He was also paying the land revenue. He sold the suit property to Sri L.Prakash, S/o Lingaiah under the registered sale deed, dated 09.10.1974 for a consideration of Rs.1,96,000/-. The said Sri L.Prakash sold the schedule property to the plaintiff on 09.01.1992. Thereafter the plaintiff erected the stone slabs compound on the eastern side of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has been in peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Two weeks prior to the filing of the suit, the defendants obstructed the farming activities of the plaintiff and tried to tresspass over the suit schedule property. The defendants also tried to put up unauthorized construction with the motive of creating false evidence. This drove the plaintiff to file O.S.No.390/1992 seeking the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

(3.) The first defendant filed the written statement and additional written statement contenting that she purchased the schedule property under the registered sale deed, dated 30.07.1986 from the legal representatives of late Basha Sab. She denied the plaintiff's right and title to the suit schedule property. The encumbrance certificate showed that there was the sale of the property between the defendants and their vendors. The plaintiff is not an agriculturist and is therefore not entitled to purchase the suit schedule property. The plaintiff belongs to an elite class and cannot be expected to plough the land. The sale, if any, executed by Sri L.Prakash in favour of the plaintiff is prohibited under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Sri L.Prakash had also filed O.S.No.190/1992 claiming to be the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. When he has claimed to be the owner of the suit schedule property in 1992, the plaintiff cannot contend that the property was sold to him. The sale deed, dated 09.01.1992 (Ex.P2) is a fake, invalid, collusive and an inoperative transaction. Any sale between late Basha Sab and Sri L.Prakash is illegal and does not in any way bind the defendants. As the revenue records contain the names of late Basha Sab's children, on his death there was no impediment for the defendants to purchase the property from the children. The plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed executed by the L.R.s of late Basha Sab in favour of the defendants. Therefore his suit is liable to be dismissed.