Skip to content


Kanvihalli Chinnappa Vs. Tigari Shivappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Kant162; ILR1977KAR676; 1977(1)KarLJ300
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rule 90; Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Sections 79-A and 80
AppellantKanvihalli Chinnappa
RespondentTigari Shivappa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateT. Venkanna, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateW.K. Joshi, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....the authorities is erroneous, still the respondent being workman had right to raise dispute on the question of fairness of the enquiry and also on the question of perversity, victimization and unfair labour practice. in view of this, it cannot be said that the passing of order of punishment by the appellate authority has prejudiced the respondent. no doubt if an authority is conferred with a power to exercise, it has to be exercised by that authority. but exercising by that authority. but exercising power by a higher authority who has got an appellate jurisdiction, it cannot be said that, it is without jurisdiction. it is only in cases where the power is sought to be exercised by such an authority who is lawyer authority to disciplinary authority, but it cannot be said against the..........bench observed:' ... ... ... what it declares is that a sale to one who is not an agriculturist is invalid. the question therefore whether a sale is or is not invalid under s. 63 can arise it there is a completed sale and that question could not have therefore arisen in an application under r. 90 of o. xxi of the civil p. c.'the above principles have been reiterated in mutteppa v. bhimappa giriappa desai, (1966 (1) mys lj 679) and extended even to a matter falling under the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 in h. n. vinayaka v. firm of h. venkatasastry and sons, 1975 (2) kant lj 12: (air 1975 kant 97). in view of these cases, it must be stated that the executing court cannot examine the question whether the sale is in contravention of ss. 79-a and 80 of the act, since the sale is not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The question raised in this petition is whether the executing court before confirming the sale, is competent to examine its validity with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act').

2. The facts are these:

In O. S. No. 746 of 1962, respondent 1 obtained a decree in execution of which certain agricultural lands were brought to sale an 17th Aug. 1972 Respondent 2 purchased the same. Challenging the validity of the sale, the petitioner filed an application under O. XXI R. 90 of the Civil P. C. to set aside the sale on the ground that it was vitiated by irregularities. That application was dismissed. Before the sale was confirmed, lie filed another objection stating that the sale was void inasmuch as it was in contravention of Ss. 79-A and 80 of the Act. The learned Munsiff without going into the merits of that contention held that the Court should confirm, the sale after the application under O. XXI, R. 90 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been preferred under S. 115 of the civil P. C.

3. Mr. Vankanna, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing court must examine the validity of the sale with reference to Ss. 79-A and 80 of the Act and the dismissal of the application under O. XXI, R. 90 is no bar for such investigation,

4. Section, 79-A in substance, provides that no person or a joint family which has, an assured annual income of Rupees 12,000/- from sources other than agricultural lands, shall, be entitled to acquire any land, whether as landowner, landlord or tenant, or mortgagee. Section 80 states that the sale in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist is invalid. It also provides that a sale in favour of an agriculturist who holds as, an owner or a tenant or partly as, owner and partly as tenant , lands which exceed the ceiling, limits, shall be invalid.

After closely perusing the provisions of those sections, I do not think that I can accede to the contention. In Chayappa Santammappa v. Mahammad Hasan, (1964 (1) Mys LJ 166) similar question relating to the validity of a sale with reference to S. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, came for consideration. The said S. 63 is analogous to Section 80(1) of the Act. While dealing with the said question, Somnath Iyer, J., speaking for the Bench observed:

' ... ... ... What it declares is that a sale to one who is not an agriculturist is invalid. The Question therefore whether a sale is or is not invalid under S. 63 can arise it there is a completed sale and that question could not have therefore arisen in an application under R. 90 of O. XXI of the Civil P. C.'

The above principles have been reiterated in Mutteppa v. Bhimappa Giriappa Desai, (1966 (1) Mys LJ 679) and extended even to a matter falling under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in H. N. Vinayaka v. Firm of H. Venkatasastry and Sons, 1975 (2) Kant LJ 12: (AIR 1975 Kant 97). In view of these cases, it must be stated that the executing Court cannot examine the question whether the sale is in contravention of Ss. 79-A and 80 of the Act, since the sale is not completed before it is confirmed. It is only a completed sale which could be challenged as being in contravention of the provisions of the Act and not the sale which has not yet been confirmed.

5. Incidentally, I may mention that the -petitioner is not without any remedy for the redressal of his grievances. He may have recourse to the remedy provided under Ss. 82 and 83 of the Act.

6. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed, but no costs.

7. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //