SHIVANNA Vs. TAHSILDAR T N PURA TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. T. N. Manjuladevi, learned High Court Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for the 1st respondent.

(2.) On 30-7-1984, in Writ Petition No. 27236 of 1982, this Court passed an order allowing the writ petition filed by the same petitioner as in the instant case, directing a fresh disposal in accordance with law after issuing a notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of hearing. The case of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that though he was a necessary and proper party being the purchaser of the land in respect of which an application had been filed under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the wife of late Dandi Boraiah, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case and to convince the 1st respondent that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration of the very same land under a registered sale deed executed on 20-3-1975. In that case, regarding the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 27236 of 1982, the 2nd respondent herein had filed an application stating that her husband was a debtor within the meaning of the Act and that she had mortgaged the land in question in favour of one Lakshmaiah, who is the 3rd respondent herein and, therefore, had sought redemption under the Act and restoration of the property.

(3.) After the order referred to above was passed by this Court on 30-7-1984 in Writ Petition No. 27236 of 1982, the 1st respondent issued notices to the petitioner as well as the other parties concerned. It is evident from the records that the 3rd respondent did not appear before the 1st respondent and no mortgage deed was produced before the 1st respondent. But the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent and produced the registered sale deed dated 20-3-1975 in support of his case. It is no doubt true that the petitioner appeared only on two dates of hearing before the 1st respondent and absented on other dates of hearing. From the order of the 1st respondent, it is seen that no finding has been given by him and he could not have done so also, on the question whether the husband of Smt. Lakshmamma, namely, Dandi Boraiah was a debtor within the meaning of the Act at the relevant point of time and whether there was any mortgage deed in existence. On the other hand, it is seen that the 1st respondent, having examined the registered sale deed, is carried away by an impression that the sale deed cannot be relied upon because it is executed by the husband of Smt. Lakshmamma in favour of the petitioner and it is the very same husband who is supposed to have executed a mortgage deed in favour of the 3rd respondent. Further, the 1st respondent has observed that as regards the question whether the document produced before him is a sale deed or not, it is a matter for the Civil Court to decide.