D.N .. VENKATARAYAPP AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 09-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
D.N .. VENKATARA YAPP A AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 1997. 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Karhataka Sch.edule Castes and ~cheduled, Tribes (Prohibition of 
Transfer of Certain Lands) .,4,ct, 1978: 
A 
B 
. Scheduled Caste-Allotment of la11d to b;: Govemme111-Rest1ictio11 011 C 
tra11sfer-Violatio11 of-Eff ect~Land purchased by P,etitioners from 01igi11al 
4/lottee-Prohibitio11 of lund transfer under the Act upto a particular 
period-Ejectme11t proceedi1tgli under file Act against petitioners-Co11cwrent 
finding by authorities that alienation in favour of petitioners was in Violation 
of the Acf-Plea of adverse possession by petitioners-Plea not raised before 
Courts below except stating that after purchase of the lands they remained in D 
possession and enjoyment of the lands-Petitioners were required to plead 
and prove that they disclaimed the title under which they came illto posses-
sion, set up adverse possession with necessary animus of asse1ti11g open and 
hostile title to the knowledge of the tme owner and the later allowed them 
without any let or hindrance, to nmain in possession and enjoyment of the E 
property adverse to the interest of the true owner until the expiry of the 
p~esc1ibed period-As the petitioners have not done so their plea of adverse 
possession was not proved-Held no interference was called for with im-
pugned decision. 
Secretary of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR (1934) PC 23; State of F 
West Bengal v. Dalhousie Institute Society, AIR (1970) SC 1778; Danappa 
Ravappa Kalli v. Gwupadappa Kallappa Pattana Shetti, ILR 1990 Kar-
nataka 610; K. T. Hutchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner, ILR (1994) Kar. 
1839 (SC) and R. Chandeveerappa and Ors. v. State of Kamataka and Ors., 
(1995) 7 JT 93 SC, cited. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4616 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.97 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. No. 7354 of 1996. 
H 
187 
188 
SUj:'REME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
.Naresh Kaushik, V. Bhadeppa, (Shanker Diwate) for Ms. Lalitha 
Kaushik for the Appellants. 
E.'C. Vidya Sagar, (NP) for the Respondents. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Karnataka High Court, made on February 21, 1997 in Writ 
C Appeal No. 7354/96. 
The petitioners, admittedly, had purchased the property in the years 
1962-63 and 1963-64 from the ·original allottees. The Government have 
allotted thos~ lands as per Saguvali Chit containing prohibition of aliena-
D tion of ·the land. Subsequently, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was 
enacted totally prohibiting the alienation up to a particular period. The 
proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for ejectment under the 
said Act. All the authorities have concurrently held "that the alienation in 
favour of the petitioners was in violation of 'the above Rules and the said 
E Act and hence the sales are voidable. When the case had come up before 
this Court, this Court while upholding the constitutionality of the Act 
directed the authorities to go into the question of adverse possession raised 
by the petitioners. The learned Single Judge has extracted the pleadings 
on adverse possession of the petitioners. Th!!rein, the High Court had 
F 
pointed out that there is no express plea of adverse possession except 
stating that after the purchase of the lands made by them, they remained 
in possession and enjoyment of the lands. What requires to be pleaded and 
proved is that the purchaser disclaimed his title under which he came into 
possession, set up adverse possession with necessary animus of asserting 
open and hostile title to the Knowledge of the true owner and the later 
G allowed the former, without any let or hindrance, to remain in possession 
and enjoyment of the property adverse to the interest of the true owner 
until the expiry of the prescribed period; The classical requirement of 
adverse possession is that it should be nee vi, clam, aut precmio. After 
considering the entire case law in that behalf, the learned Single Judge has 
H held thus: 
D.N. VENKATARAYAPPA v. STATE 
189 
"The contention raised by the petitioners that they have perfected A 
their title in respect of the lands in question by adverse possession, 
has to fail on two counts. Firstly, the crucial facts, which

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.