DYAVAPPA GOWDA Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR HASSAN DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions are heard together as the subject matter of the property in both the petitions is one and the same and the parties namely the petitioners and the contesting respondents in the petitions are same, hence both the petitions are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners in the first Writ Petition i. e. 4026/98 have challenged the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide annexure-E dated 31. 10. 1996 in No. RA 5:95-96 and Registration of the document by R2 dated 8. 10. 1996 vide Annexure-F urging various legal contentions. In the connected Writ Petition i. e. No. 31244/97 the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the second the third respondents refusing to mutate the name of the first petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 7, 2nd Block of Kanadahally Village to an extent of 2 acres of land in the name of the first petitioner vide its order dated 27. 12. 1996. That order came to be affirmed by the second respondent in the appeal under Section 136 (2) of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, urging various legal contentions.

(3.) THE brief facts to consider the case of the parties are stated as hereunder: the Tahsildar vide order dated 18. 11. 1980 granted four acres of land in Sy. No. 7 situated at Kanadahally Village, Alur Tq. , with non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years, in favour of the first petitioner, third respondent has falsely claimed that the first petitioner has executed a General Power of Attorney on 19. 10. 1982 in respect of 2 acres of land of which schedule was mentioned in the said document. The case of the third respondent is that, In respect of the land measuring remaining two acres as per Annexure-R1 the first petitioner had executed power of attorney which is more fully described in the schedule to the document. Pursuant to the said general power of attorney, the third respondent without notice to the first petitioner has sold the property in question in favour of the 4th respondent by executing the sale deed dated 21. 11. 1995. The first petitioner issued notice on 13. 11. 1995 vide Annexure-B stating that the general power of attorney dated 19. 10. 1982 in favour of the third respondent has been cancelled. The notice of cancellation of general power of attorney was sent by Certificate Annexure-C dated 14. 11. 1995. The execution of the sale deed was presented by the third and 4th respondents before the second respondent for its registration under the Registration Act of 1908. The first petitioner has submitted his objection statement before the second respondent objecting for registration of the document in favour of the 4th respondent. The second respondent has refused to register the sale deed in favour of 4th respondent for the reason that the first petitioner has got revoked the general power of attorney executed in favour of third respondent in respect of 2 acres of land and he has objected for registration of the said property in favour of the fourth respondent by executing the sale deed by the third respondent, in view of that he has referred to sub-rule (iii) of Rule 171 of the Karnataka registration Rules, 1965 (in short 'the Rules') the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the document and issued an endorsement dated 25. 11. 1995. The 4th respondent without impleading the petitioners as party respondents to the appeal before the first respondent has filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Act of 1908 questioning the legality and validity of the endorsement issued by the second respondent in refusing to register the sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent. The first respondent exercised his power under Section 72 and allowed the appeal on the basis of the no objection given by the third respondent before the first respondent who was the executant of the sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent and set aside the endorsement issued by the second respondent and directed the second respondent to register the sale deed presented by the 4th respondent vide his order dated 31. 10. 1996. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent registered the document on 22. 11. 1996. The said document is also challenged in this Writ Petition by the petitioners. It is also pertinent to refer to in this order that the first petitioner was owner of the land in question and has sold the same in favour of the second petitioner on 21. 11. 1995 i. e. much before registration of the document in favour of the 4th respondent on 22. 11. 1996.