Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
tlLl
KING & PARTRIDGEADVOCATES
PARTNER$ AOVISER
R.V.S.NA:{ K.P. KUir RSENIOR ADVOCATET's'suREgH sENloR @t{st rA nVINAYGIRI G.SUBRATIMANYAM
T.SUFYAI{ABAYANA CONST,,LTAMTABVINO [email protected]
TELEPHONE : 91&22212341, ^p123/i2, ) 115g2FttX:918-*212376
e-mafr : HrEparlovsnl.not
aS %,w,lh,goatgt r{-l-rr", - 560 OOr'
AND AT }IYDERABAD
256 May 2010
Our ref : N:H:K-5248/2010)
a
a@
Embassy Croup,Embassy Point, I Floor,No.l50, Infantry Road,Bangalore - 560 001.
Dear Sirs,
_S_urvey Nos.50/6, S4ll,etc., of Hebbal Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Bangalore District
We have prepared our Report on Titre in respect of the above property,which we enclose for your reference.
lq'rti|b+
T.SURYAITAITYAAIA @ilSt.'LTANTARVINDM@RCHUNG
TELEPHONE : 91 &?221?J11, nn2g12, ?!,214192F,tJ(:O1.6-&1?gtt'
o-rnail : kingpanolant.nat
Property
Owner
Re.
As %nte,llegoatgangzila,rp, - 560 OO4
AIIOATHYD€RABAO
25tr May 2010
Our ref : N:H:K-5248/2O10
E6to/r9/lJ.I!I!E
llry:V Nos.5)/6, S4/1,etc., of Hebbal Village, KasabaHobli, Bangafore North Taluk, Bangalore District
Kirloskar Systr-rms Limited
KING 6i PARTRIDGEADYOCATES
PARTNERS
R.V.S.NAIK
T.S.sURESH
VINAY GIRI
ADVISERKP. XUMAASENIORADV@ATE
SENOR CONSULTANIG.ST'BRAHMANYAM
,: ,|
Survey No.50/G, exfenf - 0,2 guntasSurvey No.S4/1, extent - 2,1 guntas
The above two survey Numbers previousry beronged to chikkamarappa,who had purchased the said survey Numbers from Jamanna on 2l,rNovember1931 undera safe Deed registerecl as No.r214 in Book r, Volume 211, pages
398 to 403 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangarore Taruk. We haveexamined a xerox of the certified ccpy of the sale Deed. on r9n May 1957,chikkamarappa sold the said sun.ey Numbers to chikkahanumakka under asale Deed which was registered as No.962 in Book r, Volunre .1619, pages 227to 229 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangarore North Taruk. we haveexamined the original of the sale t)eed. rt appears from the Record of Rightsthat the above survey Numbers had been mortgaged by the previous ownersvide three separate Mortgage Deecis dated zsh luly 1g2g,6n August 1939 and20s January 1941 and which were registered as No.2040g, 672 and 2239respectively. lt is not known whether these mortgages had been dischargedbefore the land was sord to chikkahanumakka. In any case, these mortgages
KING & PARTRIDGE
..\
l
:2:
have no enforceability at this point of time, as the time limit for enforcing them
has expired long time ago.
On 25h August 1962, Chikkahanumakka sold both the Survey Numbers
to,Kirloskar Asea Ltd under a Sale Deed which was registered as No.5741 in
Book l, Volume 2185, Pages 24 to 33 in the office of the Sub.Registrar,
Bangalore North Taluk. The husband and sons of Chikkahanumakka were also
made parties to the Sale Deed. Chikkahanumakka had earlier executed an
Agreement for sale in favour of M..Thimmiah, who had in turn nominated the
above company to purchase the land. Thimmiah was a confirming party to
the sale.
We have examined encumbrance certificates covering the period from
1'r April 1957 to 12rh May 2010. Ihese encumbrance certificates do not show
any encumbrance.
Survey No.52/1, extent - 3 acres 17 guntasSurvey No.52/7, extent- 2 acres lJ guntas
No title deeds are available to trace the antecedents of the above Survey
Numbers. The Record of Rights vide entry No.l46 shows that survey No.52ll
was under the possession and enjoyment of Nyathappa and his brother Muni
Earappa by virtue of a partitior. consequent to their death, khata was
transferred in the joint names of Cundala Muniyappa, son of Nyathappa and
H.M.Muddappa and H.M.Thimmaiah, both sons of Muni Earappa. on 26h July1965, Gundala Muniyappa, H.M.Muddappa and his brother together with theirrespective children, sold survey No.52l1 along with suruey No.52lz measuring
2 acres 13 guntas to Kirloskar Asea Ltd. The sare Deed was registered as
Re.
f)
cs
KING & PARTRIDGE
')
a
No.2929 in Book l, \'olume 257C, Pages 165 to 173 in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Bangalore l.lorth Taluk. The recitals in the Sale Deed refer to the
partition mentioned above. Befon: the land was sold to the Company, the land
was under the tenancy of Cuthaiah, who had filed a case under the Mysore
Tenancy Act, 1952 (since repealr:d) in T.C.No,25/65-66 in the Court of the
Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk praying for termination of tenancy and
surrender of possession to the prel ious owners. On 22d December 1965, the
Tahsildar passed orders terminating the tenancy and permifted surrender of
possession. when the order was passed, the land had already been sold to the
Company. In the Sale Deed, Ctthaiah's sons were made Confirming Parties
and it is stated that they were relinquishing whatever tenancy rights they had in
the land and that they had no obje:tion for the sale of the land to the company.
The encumbrance certificatr:s which we have examined cover the period
from l{January 1960 to 12h Ma1' 2010. The certificate for the period t"Aprif 1962 to 16h December 198d shows the sale transaction in favour of the
Company. No encumbrances are reflected in these certificates.
Survey No.52/2, extent - l acre 82 guntasSurvey No.52J8, extent - 28 guntas
Two parcels of agricultural land bearing survey No.52l2 measuring lacre 32 guntas and survey No.52lB measuring 28 guntas, in all measuring 2
acres 20 guntas including 07 guntas of kharab previously belonged toVenkataramanappa. In a partition which took place on 24th June 1935 amongst
Venkataramanappa and his sons viz., Muniswamsppa, Narayanappa,
Re
KING & PARTRIDGE
)
Chickmuddappa and Thimmaiah, both the above Survey Numbers were allotted
jointly to the sons of Venkataramanppa. Khata was entered in the name of
Muniswamappa and his brothers vide lC 47/3940. This faa is borne out by
the Record of Rights. The Record of Rights also shows that the sons of
Venkataramanappa had created two mortgages on survey No.52l2, one dated
l8m January 1934 registered as 11o.2358 and the other dated 22d February
1940 registered as No.2797 in fav'>ur of Purohit Sreekanta Shastri and another.
No entry of discharge of these n:ortgages has been shown in the Record of
Rights. These mortgages even if they are not discharged are of no significance
now because the limitation period for enforcing the mortgages has expired long
time ago.
Under a sale Deed dated 29n June 1g6s, the said Muniswamappa and
his brothers together with their respective children, sold both the parcels ofland to KirloskarAsea Ltd. The tale Deed was registered as No.228t in Book
f, Volume 2510, Pages l5l - 158 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangalore
North Taluk. Cuthaiah and Muniappa were made Confirming Parties to the
sale Deed as the above Survey Numbers were in their cultivation. They
relinquished their tenancy rights.
We have examined the encumbrance certificates for the period I't April
1935 to 126 May 2O1O, which do not disclose any encumbrance.
Re. Survey No.52/3, extent - I acre Jl guntas
An extent of 35 lz guntas, being the Northern portion of survey No.52l3,
was sold by Narasamma, widow of Anjanappa, to Kirloskar Asea Ltd under a
sale Deed dated 2Bh June 1965. The sale Deed was registered as document
)
1
KINC & PARTRIDGE
No.2275 in Book l, Volume 2510, Pages 138 - 144 in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The recitals in the Sale Deed mention that
Narasamma and her minor children succeeded to the estate of her late husband
Anjanappa which included the above land. How Anjanappa acquired title to
the land is not known. Neither the Sale Deed nor the Record of Rights throw
light on this aspect. Narasamma executed the Sale Deed on her behalf and as
guardian of her minor children. The above land was under the tenancy of
H.M.Muddappa, who was made a confirming party to the sale in token of his
consent to relinquish his tenancy rights. lt is mentioned in the recitals of the
Sale Deed that the land was being sold for the benefit of the family and to
discharge the debts incurred as the family had no adequate income.
Another extent of 35 Yz guntas, being the Southern Portion of Survey
No.52l3 was under the ownership of H.M.Thimmiah, who had purchased the
----- --said land under a Sale Deed dated 216 July 1959 registered as No.3539 in Book
f, Volume 1816, Pages 28-31. We have examined the original of the Sale
Deed. H.M.Thimmiah and his brother H.M.Muddappa together sold the
above land to Kirloskar Asea Ltd under a Deed of Sale dated 266 July 1965,
which Deed of salewas registereo as No.292z in Book l, Volume 2516, pages
160 to 165 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore Nofth Taluk.
H.M.Muddappa executed the Sale Deed on l'ris own behalf and on behalf of his
minor children as their guardian. tn this Sale Deed, there is a reference to the
previous Sale Deed under which the H.M.Thimmiah acquired the land and also
to a Receipt dated 9b May t96l rdgistered as No.1435. Though the land was
purchased by H.M.Thimmaia in his own name, his brother H.M.Muddappa
also joined in the execution of the Sale Deed, because he was in cultivation of
KING & PARTRIDGE
:i
1
:6:
the land and he had also dischargerd a mortgage created by H.M.Thimmaiah on
the said land vide the Receipt dater1 9m May 1961 referred to above.
Thus, the Company Kirloskar Asea Ltd acquired in all I acre 3l guntas
in Survey No.52l3.
We have examined several encumbrance certificates covering the
period lrtApril 1959 to 12ft May::010, which do not reveal any encumbrance.
The entries relating to transactions of discharge of mortgage by H.M.MuJdappa
vide Receipt dated th May 1961 and of sale by Narasamna in favour of the
company have been shown. Th: entries relating to sale by Narasamma and
H.M.Thimmiah in favour of the Company have been shown.
Re. Survey No.52/g extent - 2 acres JJ guntas
Agricultural land measuring 2 acres 33 guntas in survey uo.s2/4
belonged to Marianna and his scn M.siddanna, the said land having been
allotted to them under a Deed of Partition dated l6rh March 1962 registered as
No.l2074 in Book !, Volume 21+2, pages l9 to 32. Marianna and his son
Siddanna acting for himself and for his minor children as their guardian sold the
land to Kirloskar Asea Ltd under a sale Deed dated lgth May 1965. The sale
Deed was registered as No.l182 in Book l, Volume 2501, pages 7g-83 in the
office of the sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The Record of Rights vide
entry Nos.l232, 1225 and 1233 shows that a Release Deed dated 23d luly1965 was executd by Savithramrna and Narayana in favour of Kirloskar Asea
Ltd and the said Deed was registered as No.2g63. There is also an entry to the
{-.1
KING & PARTRIDGE
:.-)
I
:7 i
effect that under the Release Deed, the Releasors relinquished their tenancy
rights. This document is not available. However, we are of the view that the
entries in the Record of Rights would constitute sufficient evidence of
relinquishment of the tenancy rights. Moreover, no proceedings seem to have
been initiated by any one claiming to be the tenancy of the land for conferment
of tenancy rights under the Land Reforms Act, .|961.
Encumbrance certificates covering the period I't January 1960 to l2hMay 2010, which we have examined show nil encumbrance. ln the certificate
from 1{ April 1962 to 16'h December 1988, the sale transaction from
Mariyanna and his son in favour of the Company has been shown.
Re. Surve1t No.52/5, extent - | acre 2t guntas
Under a sale Deed 2Bh June 1965 registered as No.2274 in Book l,Vof ume 2510, Pages 127 to 137 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangalore
North Taluk, Muniyellappa and si< others, all children of late papiah, sold the
above Survey Number to Kirloskar Asea Ltd. The minor children of the sellers,
through their respective father, have been made as sellers. lt is stated in the
Sale Deed that the selfers inherited the land from their parents. lt is also stated
in the sale Deed that the land was under the tenancy of Muniyamma who
foined as Confirming Party in the Sale Deed and consented to the sale of the
land to the company. The sale Deed does not refer to any previous
documents. Legal necessity for sale of the land which has been brought aboutin the sale Deed was that the sale for the benefit of the family and to pay and
discharge the debts and other obligations incurred on account of inadequate
;@
KING & PARTRIDGE
1
family income. The Record of Rights also does not throw light on the
antecedents of title of the property.
The encumbrance certificates for the period I't Aprrl 1954 to 12th May
2010, which we have examined, do not show any encumbrance. The sale
transaction in favour of the Comprny has been shown in the certificate for the
relevant period.
Survey No.52/6, extent - I acre 35 guntas
The above survey Number measuring I acre 35 guntas belonged to
cuthaiah and others, they having acquired title to the same in a partition
agreed upon on 24ft June 1935 arrd every since then, they were in possession
and enjoyment of the said land. on 29h June r 965, the said cuthaiah and
others along with their respectire minor children sold the above land to
Kirloskar Asea Ltd and the sale l)eed was registered as No.22B2 in Book l,
Volume 2510, Pages 159-167 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangatore
North Taluk. The Sale Deed docs not mention any other previous title deed
in favour of the previous owners e(cept the partition referred to above. ln the
Record of Rights, vide entry No.l19z, the sale transaction in favour of the
Company has been shown.
We have examined the encumbrance certificates covering the period
from 1" April 1935 to l2n May 2010 which do not reveal any encumbrance.
The sale transaction in favour of the Company has been in the certificate for the
relevant period.
Re.
{.)
Oe
KING & PARTRIDGE
\
^,!
:9:
Re. Survey No.53/1, extent - 2 acres
Suruey No.53/1 measuring 2 acres (including O1 gunta of kharab) was
the self acquired property of Horrnappa alias Honna, who sold the same to
Devappa on 6th June 1947 unler a Sale Deed which was. registered as
No.71 1214€-/,7 of Book l, Volumr: 907, Pages 7&7g in tfre office of the Sub-
Registrar, Bangalore Taluk. We lrave seen a xerox of the certified copy of the
said Sale Deed. On 6h December 1948, Honnappa repurchased the land from
Devappa and this Sale Deed warr registered as No.3141 of Book l, Volume
1028, Pages 207 - 208 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore Taluk. We
have examined the original of the Sale Deed dated 6h December 1948. Entry
No.l54 in the Record of Rights shows that the Honnappa was in possession and
enjoyment of the land.
Under a Sale Deed dated 15'h September 1962 Honnappa and his sons
sole the land to Kirloskar Asea Ltd, which Sale Deed was registered as No.6432
in Book l, Volume 2185, Pages 76 - BS in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore Nonh Taluk. In the Sale Deed, J.Thimmiah was made the
Confirming Party as Honnappa had agreed to sell the land to him under an
Agreement for Sale dated 29s July.t962 and Thimmiah had nominated the said
Company to purchase the land. The sale in favour of the Company was shown
in the Record of Rights vide Entry No.860. Entry No.155 in the Record of
Rights shows that Honnappa had mortgageci the land in favour of Narasimha
and no mortgage deed was available. The fact that whether the mortgage was
discharged or not is immaterial at this point of time.
KING & PARTRTDGE
)
:10:
We have examined the encumbrance certificates for the period 1t'April
1947 to 12'h May 201Q. The certificate bearing No.4175199-2OOO for the
period from 1't April 1947 to 31't May 1989 shows the transaction of repurchase
by Honnappa from Devappa under the Sale Deed dated 6m December 1948 has
been mentioned. Encumbrance ceftificate No.5550/88-89, which we have
seen, shows the entry relating to sale transaction in favour of the Company.
The said certificates do not reflect any encumbrance.
Re. Survey No.53/2, extent - 2 acres 19 guntas
Under a Sale Deed dated 27h August 1962 registered as No.5838 in
Book f , Volume 2185, Pages 42 - 51, Kariyappa alias Karia and his sons sold
and conveyed the above Survey Number measuring 2 acres 19 guntas to
Kirloskar Asea Ltd. M.Thimmiah who was the Confirming Pady in the Sale
Deed had an Agreement executed by the sellers in his favour and he had
nominated the Company to purchase the land.
As may be seen from the Record of Rights, it appears that the above
Survey Number was under the ovrnership of Byrappa who had purchased the
said land long time ago. On 9'h June 1960, Kariyappa, son of Byrappa, and
his sons sold the land to B.Seshag.ri Rao, at which time Byrappa had died and
this Sale Deed was registered as Nr1.$pgl in Book l, Volume 1963, Pages g7-gg
in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. We have seen a
photocopy of the Sale Deed.
r ',
ie
KING & PARTRIDGE
1
(f
: 11 :
On 24n August 1962, Karirappa repurchased the land from Sheshagirj
Rao and this Sale Deed was registered as No.5387 in BooJ< l, Volums2178, -Pages 119 to 122 in.the office c.f the SubRegistrar, Bangalore Nofth Taluk.
We have examined a photocopy o'the Sale Deed. Kariyappa acting for himself
and his minor childrerr and his otlrer sons, who were maior, together sold the ,
land to Kirloskar Asea Ltd under tl'e Sale Deed dated 276 August 1962 referred
to above. The sale in favour of ':he Company was entered in the Record of
Rights vide entry No.863. Pricr to the Company purchased the land, two
tenants viz., Kempanna and Anja:rappa, were cultivating the land. These
tenants had executed separate De< larations whereunder they relinquished their
tenancy rights and consented lcr the sale of the
Anjanappa had also executed a F elease dated th July 19'c2 in favout of the
erstwhile owner Shesl',agiri Rao relinquishing tl",e tenancy, v.rhich was registered
as document No. 5836. We have ;een photocopies of the Declarations ,rnd the
Release Deed.
We have examined the enc.rmbrances certificates for the period 1" April
1962 to 12h May 2010. The ent'y relating to the sale of the land in favour of
the Company has been shown in lhe certificate for the relevant period. The
certificates do not, otherwise, discl,rse any encumbrance.
Re. Survey No.53/2, extent - I acre 33 guntas
The Covernment of Mysore vide their Final Notification No.RD l6-LCl-
64 dated 10h June 1965 published in the Mysore Cazette dated 1'r July '1965
notified an extent of 1 acre 33 gtintas of land in the above Survey Nurnber to
^@
KING & PARTRIDGE
:.J
ao
:'12:
be acquired for expansion of Kirloskar Asea Ltd. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer acquired the land and passed his Award in LAC No.69/65-66. As per
the Award, the claimants for c,)mpensation were Narqyanamma, rvife of
Cundappa, Munithayamma and Chicka Munithayamma, both daughters of
Sakamma. Narayanamma claimed her right over the land by viftue of a Gift
Deed dated 6h luly 1959 registered as No.2983 executed in her favour by her
husband Cundappa, who was th: son of Sakamma. Sakamma was
khatedar of the land and the other claimants viz., Munithayamma and Chicka
Munithayamma were her daughters. Madappa and Nanjundappa were the
anubhavadars, i.e., persons in cultivation of the land. Sakamma and
Nanjundappa were dead and Madappa had no claims on the land. Since the
claimants could not establish their rights and there was a dispute pending in
C.S.No.403 in the ll Munsiff's Court at Bangalore, the Land Acquisition Officer
felt that it was a fit case to refer to the District Court for adjudication of their
right, title and interest over the lanC apportionment of the compensation due to
them. Moreover, the claimants had claimed an abnormal compensation.
Therefore, the Land Acquisition O.ficer referred the matter to the District Coun
for adjudication and the comper,sation amount as determined by him was
ordered to be sent to the District for apportionment. The possession was
handed over to Kirloskar Asea Ltd on 4ft February 1966.
We have examined the errcumbrance certificates covering the period
from 1't April 1962to 12ft May 2010, which do not disclose any encumbrance.
Survey No.53/4, extent - 1 acre 22 guntas
The above Survey Number was previously in the ownership and
occupation of Thayapba, he having acquired title thereto in a partition between
Re.
KTNG & PARTRTDGE
^)
: 13 :
himself and his brother Muniyappa,. No partition deed is available; However,
we have obtained this information from the Record of Rights vide entry No.159.
Consequent to the death of Thayappa, the land devolved on his wife
Doddamma and two sons H.T.Thamme Cowda, who was a minor, and
Kempanna. In an oral partition between Doddamma and her sons, an extent
of 31 guntas fell to the share of Doddamma and her minor son Thamme Cowda
jointly and the remair,ing extent of 31 guntas fell to the share of Kempanna and
the khata was accordingly entered in their names.
Kempanna, acting for hirnself and as guardian of his minor son
Thayappa, sold his share of 3 | guntas in the above Suruey Number to
H.M.Muddappa under a Sale Deed dated l'|tr February 1959 which was
registered as No.7752 in Book l, Volume 1767, Pages 195 - 197 in the office of
the sub'Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. we have seen a photocopy of the
sale Deed. H.M.Muddappa, in h is turn, sold the land to Kirloskar Asea Ltd on
13h September 1962 under a S;.le Deed registered as No.633Z in Book l,
Volume 2185, Pages 70 - 76 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangalore North
Taluk. The minor sons and the t'rother of H.tvt.tvtuddappa also joined in the
execution of the Sale Deed. On the same day, Doddamma and her minor son
Thamme cowda who were entil.:d to 3r guntas of land in the said survey
Number also sold the land to Ki.'loskar Asea Ltd and this sale Deed was
registered as No.6344 in Book l, Volume 2081, pages 245 2SO.
Doddamma executed the Sale Deed not only on her behalf but also on behalf
of minor son, Thamme Cowda as his guardian and it is stated therein that she
was selling the land for the benefit of the family and to discharge the debt
incurred for the family and also to.purchase the land elsewhere.
Q
^,b
KING & PARTRIDGE
l
\
6
i74:
In the both the Sale Deeds M.Thimmaiah was made a Confirming Party
as he had two separate Agreements executed by the owners for purchase of 31
guntas each and he had nomina:ed the said Company to purchase both the
items of land. Thus, the said Company acquired in all 1 acre 22 guntas of land
in Survey No.53/4. The purchase transactions by the Company were shown in
the Record of Rights vide entry No,;.865 and 866.
The encumbrance certificat,:s covering the period from 1" January 1959
to 12s May 2010 have been madt: available and we have examined the same.
The sale transactions referred to rbove have been shown in the cert'ficates.
The encumbrance certificates do not reflect any encumbrance.
Re. Survey No.53/5, extent - 30 guntas
Kirloskar Asea Ltd., purchar'ed the above Survey Number measuring 30
' guntas on 18h September 1962 uirder a Sale Deed executed by Krishnamma,
her husband Donna Sonnappa ad her two sons and one Munipapanna. The
Sale Deed was registered as No.66')6 in Book l, Volume 2124, Pages 2O4 - 214
in the office of the Sub.Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The recitals in the
Sale Deed show that the first vencor viz., Krislrnappa acquired the above land
under a Sale Deed dated 7b June 1945 executed by Munipapanna, one of the
executants in the Sale Deed dated 18th September 1962 in favour of the
Company referred to above, and registered as No.5527 in Book l, Volume 760,
Pages 145-147. The Record of Rights show that Munipapanna had purchased
the above land on 28'h May 1935. The recitals of the Sale Deed also state that
l-\1. .'
^c
KING & PARTRIDGE
)
)
: 15 :
the said Munipapanna had issued ;r notice to Krishnamma alleging that the Sale
Deed dated 7s June 1945 execu':ed by him in her favour was in reality a
mortgage deed and that he was in actual possession of the land. The recitals
funher state that Munipapanna subsequently withdrew the notice and also
executed a Supplementary Sale Deed dated 15th September 1962 registered as
No.6605 whereunder he confirmed that the said document was in reality a
Sale Deed and handed over actual possession of the land to Krishnamma.
We have not examined the Sale Deed dated 7h June 1945. However, the
Supplementary Sale Deed has been produced before us and we have examined
the same. In any case, the fact that Munipapanna also joined in the sale of the
land by Krishnamma and her fan,ily in favour of the said Company adds to
perfection of title of the said Ccmpany to the land. lvl.Thimmaiah, who
nominated the Company as he was the Agreement Holder, joined as
Confirming Party. The sale transastion in favour of the Company was recorded
in the Record of Rights vide entry No.861.
We have examined the encumbrance ceftificates covering the period
from l't January 1945 to 126 May 2010. The certificate bearing No.4174 for
the period l't January 1945 to 31" Mach 1962 shows the transaction of
purchase of the land by Munipapanna. The encumbrance certificate for the
subsequent period from 16h December 1988 to ls June 1 999 shows the entry
relating to the sale of the land to lhe Company. The said certificates do not
otherwise reveal any encumbrance.
Re. Survey No.53/6, exfent - 25 guntas
As may be seen from the Record of Rights vide entry No.793, the above
land previously belonged to Papanna and Jeeyanna alias Chikka Jeeyanna, both
{)
lo
KING & PARTRIDGE\:'J
C',r't:16 i
(\,\u
.)
of whom had acquired the said lrnd on Bn March 1951 under a Sale Deed
registered as No.7526 in Book l, V:ltrme 1l€9;?ages 19O . 192 and t*rey were
in possession and enjoyment of the land. On 20ft September 1962, they
along with their respective childn,n sold and conveyed tlre land to Kirloskar
Asea Ltd under a Sale Deed registered as No.6698 in Book l, Volume 2124,
Pages 213-219 in the office of the Sub'Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk.
They had earlier executed an Agr:ement in favour of M.Thimmiah, who was
the Confirming Party to the Sale Deed, agreeing to sell the land with right of
nomination to the purchaser anc as such M.Thimmiah had nominated the
Company to purchase the land. Entry No.B62 in the Record of Rights shows
the purchase transaction by the Cc,mpany.
The encumbrance certificatrs for the period from 1't April 1962to 12h
May 2010 have been made available and we have examined the same. The
entry of the sale transaction in favcur of the Company has been shown in the
certificate for the relevant perit'd. No encumbrances are shown
certificates.
Re. Survey No.53/7, exfenf - I acre 30 guntas
Under a Deed of Sale datsd 20h September 1962, Kirloskar Asea Ltd
purchased from Jeeyanna acting for himself and his minor cnildren an extent of
1 acre 30 guntas including 01 gu.rta of kharab in the above Survey Number.
The Sale Deed was registered as No.6701 in Book l, Volume 2097 , Pages 193 -200 in the office of the Sub'Registrur, Bangalore Nofth Taluk. No previous title
deeds are available. The Sale Deed also does not refer to any previous
ther)
lw
KING & PARTRIDGE
..\
J
i17:
documents. However, it is stated that the land was the ancestral property
inherited by the seller and he was in continuous and undisturbed possession of
the land. The Record of Rights also does not throw light on the antecedents of
the property. The legal necessiW fcjr sale of the land by the seller was brought
,out in the Sale Deed by stating tlat the land was being sold for the benefit of
the family, to clear the debts incurred on account of inadequate incomc of the
family and to purchase the land elsewhere. The seller had earlier agreed to sell
the land to M.Thimmaiah with option given to him to nominate any purchaser
in whose favour the seller would €.xecute the sale deed and as such Agreement
Holder he had nominated the said Company to purchase the land. To assure
good title in favour of the Company, M.Thimmaiah was made the Confirming
Party in the Sale Deed.
We have examined the encumbrance cefiificates covering the period 1{
April 1959 to l2thMay 2010 whi;h do not reveal any encumbrance. The
entry relating to sale transaction ir favour of the Company was shown in the
certificate for the relevant period.
Re. Survey No.54/2, extent - 1 acre 24 guntas
No prior title deeds are available in respect of the above Survey Number.
However, few entries in the Record of Rights throw light on the title. Entry
No.l64 show that Chikkamarappa, son of Jamanna acquired the above land
from Kempanna of Cangenahalli on 24tr April 1906 under a Sale Deed
registered as No.2395. After his death, the land was mutatd in the ioint names
of his son M.Shamanna and wife Marakka. lt also appears from the Record of
l,\l
&
KTNG & PI.RTRTDGE
:18:
)
Rights that Chikkamaranna had drrring his life time created two mortgages on
the land under two separate Mottgage Deeds dated 6'h August 1939 and I'i
January'1941 which were also registered as Nos.672 and 2239 respectively.
Documents for clearing these motgages have not been made available. ln
any case, these mortgages are barrrld by limitation at this point of time.
Under a Sale Deed dated l lih September 1962, Shanranna along with his
mother Marakka and two other brothers sold the above lalrd to Kirloskar Asea
Ltd and the Sale Deed was regisered as No-6431 in Rook l, Volumc 3r€sr---Pages 85 to 92 in the office of tre sub'Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. rt
appears from the Sale Deed that (lhikkamarappa had two rvives viz., Marakka,
[email protected], being the second wife. Muniyamma
also joined as one of sellers. M.l'himmaiah was the Confirming Party since he
was the Agreement Holder, who had nominated the company to purchase the
land.
We have seen the encumbrance certificates covering the period from I't
January 1960 to 12h May 2010, vfiich do not show any encumbrance. The
entry relating to the sale of the land to the Company has been shown in the
certificate for the relevant period.
Re. Survey No.54/3, extent- I acre J6 guntas
The above survey Number measuring 1 acre 36 guntas including 02
gunta of kharab land was previously under the ownership of subbanna, who
had acquired the said land on ss.May l90g under a sale Deed executed by
Byarappa in his favour and registered as No.2g45 in Book l, Volume 79, pages
464 to 467. We have not exanrined this sale deed. However, this fact is
o
{:}
v
KING & PARTRIDGE
:19:
)
i
borne out from the Record
intestate leaving behind surviv ng him, his three sons viz., Maistry
Subbahanuma alias Marappa, Chikmarappa and Byanna. Consequent to the
death of Subbanna, the above lanC devolved on his aforesaid sons. On 13th
September 1962, all the three son; of Subbanna and their respective sons, both
minor and major, sold and conveyed the land in favour of Kirloskar Asea Ltd
and the Sale Deed was registered as No.6345 in Book l, Volume 2119, Pages
116 to 123 in tire office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. The
recitals in the sale Dced refers to the previous Sale deed dated 56 May 1908
under which Subbana acquired thr: land. M.Thimmaiah in rvhose favour the
sellers had agreed to.sell the lanrl and who had nominated the company to
purchase the land joined as Confinning Party in the Sale Deed. The reasons for
the sale, as stated in the sale l)eed, were that for family benefit and for
discharging the debts incurred lly the families on account of inadequate
income. One of the coparcene s by name Ramakrishna, son of Byanna, who
was away on pilgrimage when tf,e sale was made, executed a Supplemental
Deed on 24'h october 1962 in favour of the company ratifying the sale made
by his father, uncles and their family members to the Company. The
supplemental Deed was registerec as No.B0B1 in Book r, Volume 2137, pages
161 - 162 in the office of the sul-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, a copy of
which we have examirred. Vide e ,ntry No.864 of the Record of Rights, the sale
transaction in favour cf the Compa ty was recorded.
We have examined the encumbrance certificates from l't April 1962 to
12th May 2010 which do not reverl any encumbrance on the land. The sale
nlo
KING & PARTRIDGE
)1
w
t20:
transaction in favour of the Comprrny has been shown in tlre certificate for the
relevant period.
Re. Survey No.54/4, extent - 2 acre 0S guntas
Survey No.54l4, measurinl; 2 acres 05 guntas including 03 gunta of
kharab, was previously under the ,lwnership of chikkanna, he having acquired
it by purchase. After his life time; his son Sombaiah and Munithimmaraya also
known as Thimmaraya, son of sorrbaiah, together sold the land to choodappa
under a document dated 3d May l95l registered as No.8r5. on 19n May
1952, Munithimmaraya repurchased the land from choodappa and the sale
Deed was registered s No.l lTg/s:l-s3. Though we have not examined the
documents referred to above, we have narrated the flow of title based on the
entries recorded in the Record of Rights.
Under a sale Deed dated 25ft Augus t 1962 registered as No.5z42 in
Book l, Volume 2185, Pages 33 to 42 in the office of the sub-Rcgistrar,
Bangalore North Taluk, the said ,vunithimmaraya alias Thimmaraya sold the
said land to Kirloskar Asea Ltd. The minor children, father and brother ofMunithimmaraya were also made'rendors in the Sale Deed. lt is described in
the recitals of the Sale Deed that the first vendor viz., Sombaiah was the kartha
of the Joint Family consisting of tlre aforesaid vendors and the second vendor
viz., Munithimmaraya acquired the above land on l9h May '1952 fromand out
of his own earnings and in order to assure a perfect title in favour of the
company, his father and-brother \ryere joining the execution of the sale Deed.
M.Thimmaiah joined.as Confirming party as he had an agreement to purchase
(}
^a
KING & PARTRIDGE
.\,')
1
:21 :
the land from the owlrers either ir his name or in his nominee's name and as
he had nominated the Company to purchase the land.
;
The encumbrance certificat:s covering the period I' April r952 to 12th
[4ay 2010, which we ilave examined, do not strow any encumbrance. ] he sale
transactions referred to above have been shown in the certif cates.
Re. Survey No.54/5A, extent - 16 t/z guntas
The above land was under the ownership of Maistry Rangappa, who had
acquired it by purchase under a egistered document No.2z6 dated 28tr July'1932. After the death of Maistry (angappa, the khata was entered in the name
of his eidest son H.R.Anjanappl with the consent anc no obfection of
Maralinganrma and ,i.R.Lingann,r, wife and younger son of late
Rangappa. H.R.Anjarrappa, his brother anci mother v/ere in joi rt and
undisturbed possessicn of the lanc.
Under a Sale Deed dated tih September 1962, Anj:rnappa, his brother,
along with their minor sons, and I is mother together sold the land to Kirloskar
Asea Ltd. The sale [)eed was registered as No.6123 in Book r, Volume 2195,
pages 64 to 70 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk.
The necessity for the sale was to discharge the mortgage with M.p.C.S. Ltd and
for the benefit of the family. I'he sale transaction has been entered in the
Record of Rights vide entry No.859.
i)^@
KING & PARTRIDGE
,)
^)
:22:
We have exanrined the er'cumbrance certificates covering the period
from.ls January 1960 to l2h May 2010, which do not show any encumbrance.
The entry relating to the sale tran;action in favour of the company has been
shown in the certificate for the relevant period.
Re. Survey No.54/58, extent - t6 % guntas
Under a' sale dated 25h August 1962, Mohamed saliya alias Babajan
sold and conveyed an extent of '6 yz guntas of land in survey No.54l58 to
Kirslokar Asea Ltd. The sale D-'ed was registered as Nlo.5z40 in Book l,
volume 2185, Pages 18 to 25 irr the office of the subRegistrar, Bangalore
North Taluk. This transaction has been recorded in the Record of Riglrts vide
entry No.853 and no other details with regard to the previous title of the land
are available from the Record of Rights. Fronr the examination of the said Sale
Deed, it appears that the seller had acquired the land by virtue of a Sale Deed
dated 6n January 1955 executed by Janab Abdul caffar and registered as
No.4709 of Book l, Volume 1447, Pages 31 to 33. This sale Deed has not
been made available to us. Howtrver, photocopy of a certified copy of a sale
Deed dated l6h May 1946 registe red as No.6141 has been made available to'us which we have examined. U rder this sale Deed, the said Babajan sold an
extent of tz guntas of land in s.rrvey No.54l5 to Abul caffar. From the
recitals, it appears that Babajan had acquired the land earlier from H.Rangappa
on Brh November 19,15 under a registered sale Deed. Babajan actually
repurchased the land from AMul caffar under the sale Deed dated 6h January
1955 referred to above and at which point of time, Survey No.54l5 came to be
known as 54/58 and the extent was found to be 1 6 vz guntas.
o
t,)A\g
KING & PITRTRIDGE
:23:
M.Thimmaiah was made tf e Confirming Party in the sale transaction in
favour of the Company as he had rrominated the Company to purchase the land ,
by virtue of an Agreenrent for sale.executed in his favour by Babajan.
We have examined the enr umbrance certificates covering the period I'tApril 1 965 to 1 2h Ma'/ 201 0 whic r do not reveat any encurnbrance. 'l he sale
transaction in favour
relevant period.
Re. Survey No.Sa/Q extent - 2 acres 0t gunta
Kirloskar Asea Ltd purchased the said land from Mariyanna and his son
M.siddanna under a sale Deed d.rted 2zth August 1962, which sale Deed was
registered as document No.5840 irr Book l, Volume 219s, pages 58 - 64 in the
office of the sub-Registrar, Ban 3alore North Taluk. The seconcJ vendor
M.siddanna represented himself :rnd his minor sons as their guardian. lt is
mentioned in the Sale Deed that the first vendor viz., Mariyanna acquired the
said land on 20th May 1962 fron Earappa and others under a sale Deed
registered as No.l705 in Book l, \'olume 2161, pages g7 to g9 in the office ofthe sub-Registrar, Bangafore Nort'r Taluk. we have not examined this sale
Deed. From the Record of Right.;, it is evident that the above land was under
the joint possession and enjoyffrent of Dyavappa and his brother chikkaNanjappa, and the khata stood in the name of chikka Nanjappa. consequent
to the death of chikkananjappa, khata was entered in the name of his son
Earappa. Under the sale Deed date d 20n May 1962 referred to above, Earappa,
his mother and brother together with his uncle Dyavappa and his son
i)
KING & PARTRIDGE
:24:
l^)
Krishnappa sold the lr.nd to Mariy rnna. Mariyanna, in hi; turn, sold tae land
to the said company vide the sale Deed referred to above. The confirming
Pafty in the sale Deed was M.Thirnmiah, who had nominaied the company to
purchase the land by virtue of an option given to him under an Agreement for
sale executed by the previous owner. The Record of Rights vide entry No.B54
mentions the sale transaction in far our of the Company.
We examined the encumbtance certificates covering the period from 1il
Aprif 1960 to 126 May 2010, wh ch do not disclose any encumbrance. The
certificate bearing No.4170/gg-2(00 from 1" April 1960 to 3l'r May 't989
shows the transactions of- purclrase of the land by lulariyanna and the
subsequent sale by him in favour cf the Company.
Re. Survey No,54/7, extent - I ircre 04 guntas
No previous title deeds are available with regard to the above land.
As may be seen from the Record of Rights, sonnappa, son of Badigappa had
purchased the above land from papanna on gh February .|903. The registration
particulars of the said document are not available even in the Record of Rights.
Under a sale Deed dated .rz'h August 't962, sonnarpa sold the above
land to Kirloskar Asea Ltd. The S tle Deed was registered irs No.5g39 in Book
l, Volume 2185, Pages 51 - 58 ir the office of the sub-llegistrar, Bangalore
Nofth Taluk. The other executants of the sale Deed were Marappa and
Siddanna (acting for themselu", .n,J for their minor sons as their guardian), both
sons of Sonnappa and Mariyanna and his son Siddanna (for himself and for his
o,^s
KING & PARTRIDGE
,-:J
^l
:25:
minor sons as their guardian). Th: recitafs in the Sale Deed show that the land
belonged jointly to Sonnappa and Mariyanna, they having acquired title thereto
by virtue of a Partition Deed datecl 5h June 1962 and registered as No.1 2074 in
Book l, Volume 2122, Pages 19 - 32. We have examined a photocopy of the
certified copy of the Partition Deerd. The partition of the ancestral properties
was effected between sonnappa., and his two sons on the one part and
Mariyanna and his son on the other part. The Partition Deed states that
Kenchappa, Kuntappa, siddanna and Badigappa, all brothers were the ancestors
to whom the properties involved 'n the Partition Deed previously belonged to.
Kenchappa and Kuntappa died, ppbably issueress. siddanna and Badigappa
also died leaving behind their respective sons viz., sonnappa and Mariyanna.
The above fand is not the subject natter of the paftition Deed. Though, it was
the self-acquired property of sonnappa, the same would have been treated as
joint family property and that could be the reason for Mariyanna and his sonjoining in the Sale Deed in favour of the Company.
We have exanrined the ettcumbrance certificates covering the period
from lstJuly 1924 to .|2tr May 2c1a, which do not reflect any encumbrance.
The-encurnbrance certificate from r$July 1924 to 3r{ May r9B9 shows the sale
transaction in favour of the Compa ry.
Re. Survey No.S4/8, exfenf - 0 t gunta
As borne out from the Record of Rights vide entry No.1z2, the aboveland was under the possession and enjoyment of Byranna for a long number ofyears. Entry No.808 shows that after the death of Byranna, the land was
o,.:@
KING & PARTRIDGE
:26:
mutated in the name of Thamman"lappa, eldest son of Byranna.
Record of Rights, no crther documcnts are available.
Apart f-rom the -
)1
Vide sale Deed dated 206 November 1962, Thanmannappa, in his
personal capacity an<l acting as guardian of his minor son, sold the land to
Kirloskar Asea Ltd and the sale Deed was registered as document No.9000 in
Book l, Votume 2228, Pages 20r to 205 in the office of the sub.Registrar,
Bangalore North Taluk. lt is statld in the recitals of the Sale Deed that in an
amicable division of the propefties effected between Tharnmannappa and his
brother Narayanappa, the above land was allotted to the share ofThammannappa and in order to alisure a befter and more perfect title in favour
of the said company, Narayanapl,a, representing himself ,rnd his minor sons,
also joined the Sale Deed as the se cond vendor.
we have seen encumbrance certificates covering the period 1'r January
1960 to 31" March 2004 whicr do not reveal any encumbrance. The
eniumbrance certificate for the rclevant period shows the sale transaction infavour of the Company.
Re. Survey No.SB/48', extent - l acre 0J guntas
Suruey No.5B/48 (previou;ly Survey l.lo.5g/4) measuring 1 acre 03guntas previously belonged to Krisrnappa, son of sathyappa. on lOrh February
1960, the said Krishnappa, representing himself and his nrinor children, sold
the above land to T.C.Dasappa. "his sate Deed was registered as 243 in Bookl, Volume 1890 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Tatuk. we
t :,lFt'
.@'
KING & PARTRIDGE
)
:27:
have examined a photocopy of the Sale Deed. The recitals in this Sale Deed
show that Krishnappa had acqu.red the land from Munivenkatappa on l4nNovember 1959 under a sale Deed registered as No.ztzB in Book l, Volume
1852, Pages 91 to 93, a copy of which has been produced before us and we
have examined the same. The above sale transactions are recorded in the
Record of Rights.
Under a Deed of sale da:ed 25n Aprir 1963 registered as No.z10 inBook l, Volume 2264, Pages 232 to 236, the said Krishnappa repurchased the
land from Dasappa. on 29th Ap'il 1963, Krishnappa, in turn, sold the land toKirloskar Asea Ltd and this sale Deed was registered as No.g35 in Book l,Volume 2264, Pages 237 to 244 in the office of the sub-Registrar, Bangalore
North Taluk. Entry No.1020 in th'e Record of Rights shows the sate transaction
in favour of the Company.
The papers furnished to us contain a copy of the compromise decree inO.S.No.l 61167. lt appears that ono Munivenkatappa had fifed the said Originalsuit'against Krishnappa and the abresaid company for permanent injunctionrestraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule prrrperty viz., survey No.58. lt appears thatsurvey No.58 was larger in extent measuring 6 acres 24 guntas out of whichsurvey No.58r4B and 58/4C were formed. Survey No.5g/48 betonged toKrishnappa who sold the same to the said company and survey No.5B/4cbelonged to Muniveanktappa, the praintiff. The parties filed a compromisepetition in terms of which suit was dismissed on 29,h January l9z2 and thecourt declared that the said company was the owner of survey No.5g/48 by
r-\
:0
KING & P,TRTRIDGE
i28:
-c
virtue of its purchase under the lale Deed referred to above and the plaintiff
was the owner of Survey No.5B/4(..
We have exarnined the e rcumbrance certificates. covering the period
from l't April 1962 to 12ft May ::010. The encumbrance certificate bearing
No.5549/88-89 from I't April r9(,2 to 166 December lgtJg shows the entry
relating to the sale transaction in fa.vour of the Company.
We have examined the Sa.le Deeds in original in favour of Kirloskar
Asea Ltd., in respect of allthe above Survey Numbers.
The Company applied to lhe Divisional Commissioner for conversion
from agricultural to non-agricultur: I purposes in respect of 19 acres I I guntas ofland comprised in survey Nos.506, s3rr, s3/2,53/4, s3/5, s3/6, s3/7, s4/1,
54/2, 54/3, 54/4,5415A, s4/sB, 5'l/6 and 54/7. The Divisional commissioner
who was the competent authority at that time vide his Official Memorandum
No.D.Dis.ALNt.sR.BnN.62l62-3 dated 246. December jg62 granted
conversion subject to payment of conversion fine at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per
acre and non-agricultural assessment at the rate of Rs.80/- per acre. An extent
of 08 guntas of land in Survey No.53/7 which had been classified as kharab was
also converted at an upset price of Rs.2,000/- per acre. The conversion was
for industrial purposes. Survey No.53/3 did not require any conversion because
the land had been acquired by the state covernment for the Company under
the provisions of the Land Acquis,tion Act. The remaining survey Numbers
purchased by the above company prior to tlre conversion order as well as
()
^&
KING & PTTRTRIDGE
)
:29:
subsequent thereto \^'ere not corvertd and continued as agricultural in thehands of the Company.
The name of the company was changed to Kirloskar systems Limited.We have seen the Fresh Certific;.te of Incorporation dated 2gth March 1977issued by the Registrar of Compani:s, Karnataka, Bangalore.
The Company applied to th: Covernmerrt of Karnataka for exemJrtion ofthe land from the prcvisions of !ection 20(l(a) of the UrL,an Land (Ceiling &Regulation) Act, 1976 which was 6ranted by the Covernme'rt vide their ordersbearing No.HUD zs cup g4 dater 20h November l9gz. Now that tlre aboveAct is repcafed, the exemption ordr,r is of no significance.
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, l96l was amended with effect from r,rMarch 1974. As per the amended Act on and with effect from 1,r Marc|t 1974it was not lawful for a company :.o hold agricultural land. The prohibitionapplied even in respect of land p.rrchased by a company prior to 1{ March1974. A Company lrolding agricultural land as on that dey was required tosurrender the same to the State Co''ernment after filing a declaration furrrishingthe details of such lantl and on the Deputy cor,rmissioner passing an order onsuch declaration, the land vested in the State Covernment ab.;olutely and free ofall encumbrances. Wherever suc r declarations were not frled it was open tothe authorities to pass orders forfeit ng the land in favour of the covernment.
KING & PARTRIDGE
:30:
)
-)
It appears that the Company did not file any declaration under the Land
Reforms Act. The Special Depub, Commissioner, Bangalore District passed an
order in Case No.LRF.79(8)24/9485 dated 20r April tg8g forfeiting the entireextent of 17 acres 24 guntas of unconverted land. Agai;rst the above order,
the Company filed an Appeal befoie the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No-400/89. The Conpany conttrnded that the forfeited land though ciassified
as agricultural in the tevenue reco,'ds was in fact not being used for agriculturalpurposes as the Company was not carrying on any agricultural activities and no
land revenue was being levied thereon and therefore the provisions of the Land
Reforms Act did not apply to the l,rnd. The Company also contended that theland had been exempted by the state covernment from the provisions ofChapter lll of the Urban Land (Cei'ing & Regulation) Act, 1976. lt was funhercontended that the Covernment of Karnataka had thoroughly examined thematter and had granted the exemp tion enabling the Company to hold tire land
under that Act. lt wrs therefore ,:ontended that the forfeiture order passed bythe Deputy Commissioner was illel;al.
The Tribunal after hearing bcth the parties, allowed tlre Appeal fotlowinga Division Bench judgement of the. High Court ln the case of Mysore Feeds Ltd
v' state reported in ILR 1988 Karnataka gg9. ln the judgement, the High coufihad held that in the absence of anv specific finding that these lands were beingused as agricultural lands, the Sprrcial Deputy Commissioner was in error inassuming them to be agricultural.lands by the sole fact that the petitioner
sought permission for using the lands for non-agricultural purposes undersection 95(2) of the Land Revenue Act. lt was held that when the stateCovernment granted exemption ur,der Section 2O of the Urban Land (Ceiling &
KING & P/\RTRIDGE
'a
1
:31 :
Regulation) Act, 1976 at had to be assumec that the p,:rson to whom the
exempticn has been 1;ranted had the title to hc.ld such land,and funher that the
Deputy Commissioner being a :;ubordinate'officer to the State Government
could not nullify wlrat the state c overnment had ganted by way of exempting
the land from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiting & Regulation) Act and itwas not open to him to assume a fact contrary to the assumption of tfie State
Government. In the above case, the Division Bench of the High court was
dealing with a mafter wherein the land held by a Company had been forfeited
by the Deputy Commissioner as vras done in the case of Kirloskar Systems Ltd
on the ground that the said Company was not competent to hold agri:ulturalland under the Land Reforms Act. The company had ,"rirt"d the actio r of theDeputy commission€r on the gr>und that the land had not been used foragricultural purposes ;rnd that the litate Covernment had gri.nted the exemption
enabling the company to hold rhe rand under the Urban Land (ceiling &Regulation) Acr., 1976. The Divir ion Bench ailowed the /.ppeal and set aside
the order of the Deputy Commissi<,ner forfeiting the land.
Against the judgement of th: High Court, the State Covernment had fileda Special Leave Petition to the 1iupreme Court which came to be rejected
without assigning any reasons. t was on the basis of the ratio of jud.gement
of the High court as faid down in Mysore Feeds case, the Triburral had
allowed the Appeal filed by Kirloskar and sct aside the order of forfeiturepassed by the Deputy Commission :r. The State Covernmeirt did not ch lllengethe Tribunal's order.
r)
lt
KING & PARTRIDGE
)
.32:
In another similar case, tle State Government again took the matter tothe supreme court. The judgernent of the supreme court is repofted in
Judgements Today 1994(6) S.C.5(.2 - State of Karnataka v. Shankara Textiles
Mills Ltd. The facts in this cas3 were that Shankara Textiles Mills Ltd was
holding certain land- which ha<, not been converted for non-agriculturalpurposes. This land was sought t r be acquired by the lmp, ovement Board andpursuant to the acqu,isition procgedings, possession was taken over by thelmprovement Board o:r 9h August | 979. There was some delay in passing the
award by the Land Acquisition Olficer. Following a direction by the Highcourt, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition officer. However, theDivisional commissioner did not approve the same and therefore the companyfiled another writ petition seeking a direction to the Divisional Commissionerwhich was allowed and the Divis onal Commissioner was directed to disposethe proceedings arising out the auard within a period of two months from thedate of the receipt of the court crder. In spite of the court directirn, theDivisional commiss;orer did not ;rass any order in the proceedings. Dr.rring
the pendency of the proceedingr before the Divisional Commissioner, theCompany filed a deciaration undcr Section 79-B stating that it had held theentire disputed land as agricultu al land and claimed exemption fnrm theprovisions of section 79-B of th: Land Reforms Act on the ground that thedisputed land was mortgaged to a Financial corporation on 3d June 1992.The Deputy commissioner passed an order exempting the disputed land fromthe provisions of section z9-8. Against this order, the state Governmentpreferred an appeal to the Tribunal which was allowed and a direction wasissued to the Revenue Authorities to take action under Section 79-B of the Act.The company filed a writ petition rgainst the order of the Tribunal. The High
ra
KING & PARTRIDGE
)
f o
:33:
court held, relying ugrcn its decision in Mysore Feeds casr, that the land had
ceased to be agricultural by its ueage for a non-agriculturrl purpose although
there was no order under the Lard Revenue Act permittirrg the convesion of
the land for non-agricultural use. lt was against this order of the High Court,
the State covernment took the m.rfter in appeal to.,the suprerne court. The
Supreme Court on a detailed ana ysis of the Karnataka Land Reforms Acl and
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act h:ld that the ratio laid down by the High Court
in Mysore Feeds' case was not th: correct law having regqrd to the provisions
of the Land Reforms Act and decl: red that the provisions of Section 95(2) Land
Revenue Act were mandatory rnd unless the agricultr ral land had been
converteci for a purJose other than agricultural in accordance with the
provisions of Sectiorr 95(21, the lar.d continued to be agricultural irrespe:tive of
its use for non-agricultural purpos r. Therefore, the supreme court overruled
the judgement of the lligh court ir Mysore Feeds' case and allowed the Appeal
of the State Covernntent.
The question that arises for rur consideration is whether the order of the
Tribunal in Appeal No.400/89 is valid in view of the Supreme Court judgement
on Shankar Textiles A4ills Ltd overruling the judgement ol the High Court in
Mysore Feeds case.
Under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not open to a
court to try any matter which was c irectly and substantially an issue in a former
proceeding between tlre same parties or between parties under whom they or
any of them claim litigating unde'the same title in a court competent to try
such issue in which the same has t'een subsequently raised and has beerr heard
o-)@
KING & P,TRTRIDGE
;.. )
I
@
t34:
and finally decided by such court. This rule is based on the principles of "res
judicata".
In the present case, the qu -.stion whether the unconverted land held by
Kirloskar Systems Ltcl attracted tre provisions of Sectiorr 79-B of tf.e Land
Reforms Act has bee,r adjudicateJ upon by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.400/89. The Tri lunal, based on the ratio of the judge nent of the Division
Bench, ruled that tlre disputed la'rd did not Ettract the pnrvisions of.tlre Land
Reforms Act and therefore set asi,le the forfeiture order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner. The State, who rras the aggrieved pafty in the Appeal, did not
challenge the order of the Tribural and thus, the said order became final as
between the parties concerning the disputed land. The fact that subsequently
the Supreme Coun overruled the ;udgement of Mysore Feeds case in Shankara
Textiles case does not, in our vierr., affect the validity of the order passed by the
Tribunal. We are, in our abore opinion, fortified by a judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Supr-'me Court Employees Welfare Association v.
Union of India reported in AIR 1990 S.C.334. In the :,aid judgement, the
Supreme Court was oealing witlr a matter wherein the De lhi High Co-rrt had
fixed the scale of pay of Lower D vision Clerks and Class lV employe es of the
Delhi High Court, against which the Union of India had filed a Special Leave
Petition. The Supreme Court lrad summarrly dismissec the Special Leave
Petition. The question therefore arose before the Supreme Court was whether
by such dismissal the Supreme ,3ourt had declared the Delhi High Court
judgement as the correct law under Article 141 of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court held that when a Special Leave Petition was summarily
dismissed under Article 136 of the Constitution without assigning any reason for
o1
KING & PARTRIDGE
a*
:35:
such dismissal, the Supreme Court had not laid down any law as envisaged by
Articfe 141 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further held that even
assuming that the judgement ol the Delhi High Court was erroneous, the
judgement being on questions of fact would operate as res judicata between
the same parties in a subsequent pioceeding over the same cause of action.
We are also supported by another judgement of the Supreme Court in
the case of Arora Enterprises Ltd ;.nd others v. Indubhusharr Obhan and others
reported in (1997)5 SCC 366. In this case, the Supreme Court was examining
an order passed by the Bombay t-,igh Court dismissing an application to bring
the legal representatives of a dece,tsed defendant on record. The High Court
had dismissed the suit on the gr:und that since the deceased defendant had
been declared insolvent the suit had abated as against the legal representatives
of the insolvent defendant. The order of dismissal which was confirmed by a
Division Bench on appeal remained unchallenged thereafter. Subsequently the
Insolvency Court had annulled the insolvency and the plaintiffs/applicants had
sought to revive the suit contendirg that the annulment of insolvency related
back to the date of declaration of irrsolvency and therefore the abatement of the
suit had to be set aside as a mafier of law. The Supreme Coutt, while
negativing the contention of the plrintiffs/applicants held that as a result of the
judicial order passed by the High t)ourt in the proceedings between the parties
dismissing the suit as having been abated, the order was valid until it was set
aside or annulled in appropriate pnlceedings and that it cannot be ignored. lt
was held that such order will hare legal effect of its own until appropriate
proceedings were taken to establi;h its invalidity and to get it annulled by a
person entitled to avold it. Since the order passed by the Bombay High Court
i)
ry
KINC & PTTRTRIDGE
:36:
)
no
dismiss;ng the suit c)rrtinued tc be operativg-'the-subseq-u-ent a-nnul;nent oT
insolvency did not htrve the effect of invalidating the said..order and therefore
dismissed the appea ls'of the pf ai nt ifflappl icants.
We are, therefore, of the r iew that the order of the Tribunal in Appeal
No.400/89 has become final as between the parties and operates as "res
judicata" insofar as the unconvefted land measuring 17 acn:s 24 guntas and the
holding cf the said lar d by Kirloskrr Systems Ltd is not contary to law.
Ki.loskar Systerns Ltd., sold an extent of 5 acres 20 g'rntas out of lhe total
fand measuring 38 aeres 24 guntas, forming part of Sun,ey Nos.52/i, 52/2,
5213 and 53/4 to Ast.azeneca Inc ia Private Ltd., under a Sale Deed dated 7'h
March 2002 which was registereJ as document No.20521 /01-02 in the office of
the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore Nortt Taluk, Bangalore. Under a Sale Deed also
dated 7h March 2002 registerel as document No.20831/O"l-A2, Kirloskar
Systems Ltd., sold an extent of 1 acre forming part of Suruey No.52/1 to
Astrazeneca Research Foundation lndia. Under a Sale Deed dated 10h June
2002 registered as dor:ument No.a28912002-03, Kirloskar Systems Ltd., sold an
extent of 3 acres 1 I .9!)B guntas in iurvey Nos.S 4/2, 54/1 , 51V6,5418 aito part of
Survey Nos.54l3, 53/2 and 53/1 rc MRO - Tek Ltd. The e rtries relatin3 to the
said sale transactions Jrave been re lected in the encumbran<.e certificates.
We have taken out a search in the office of Registra' of Companies and
are satisfied that there arc no charges created by the Company under Section
125 of the Companies Act, 1956 otr the entire land.
KING & PARTRIDGE
t37:
As a result, we are of the v ew that Kirloskar Systems Limited has a good
and marketable title to the land measuring 28 aci.es 32.002 guntas
comprised in the aforesaid survey Numbers and its title is free of all
encumbrances, charges and liens: subject to charges, if arry, created by the
said Company and registered with the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka,
Bangalore under Section 125 of tl e Companies Act, 1956.
Kirloskar Systems Ltd., has entered into an Agreement 29th June 1999
with Embassy - TCG Developments Pvt. Ltd., (a fifty-fifty joint venture company
established by Embassy Projects Pvt. Ltd., and TCG Developments Pvt. Ltd.,)
whereunder Kirloskar has engage' the services of Embassy- TCC as the Project
Development Manage:ment Comp rny for development of the project known as
"Kirloskar Business Park" on the said land.
lU+f,+r,,tK,Nc f PARTRIDGE 0
