HUCHAPPA YELLAPPA RADDER AND ANR. versus NINGAPPA BHEEMAPPA TALAWAR

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 14-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HUCHAPPA YELLAPPA RADDER AND ANR. 
v. 
NINGAPPA BHEEMAPPA TALAWAR 
[KULDIP SINGH, B.P . .JEEV AN REDDY AND N. VEN KA TACHALA, 
.J.J .1 
MAY 14, 1993 
A 
B 
Trall.lfer u.f Property Act 1882-S.lll(d)-Karnawka (Prevemion of Frag-
memation & Consolidation of Holdings) Act 1966-S. 39( 3 )- Kamataka land 
Reforms Act 1961, Ss. J.I 1 and 1./3-Sale of land to tenams in possession fotmd C 
rnid in a suit JiJr partition 1f joint family properties, '>rhether right of tenancy 
disturbed /Jy the sale deed-Held, since sale deed void because rhe undivided 
imerest r!(rhe brother could not have been sold, there was no merger of interest 
within S. 111 (d) TP. Act-Tenancy rights not affected ,1,. disturbed by sale . 
deed-BvmhaY Hereditary o.{(ices Act 187./-Bo111hay Paragand and Kulkarni 
I\' a tans (Abolirion)Act 1950-Bombay Tenancy and Agricul11ira/ Lands Act 1948. 
D 
Basappa Bheemappa was the Watandar of the disputed agricultural 
lands admeasuring 4 acres, and 6 acres 26 guntas, in Kubihal Village in 
Kundgol Taluk of Dhwarwad District which became a part of Karnataka 
State in 1956. In 1950, he leased the disputed lands tu appellant l and the 
father of appellant 2 for their personal cultiYation. 
With the coming into force of the Bombay paragana and Kulkarni 
Watans (A holition) Act 1950, the lands were resumed by the State of Bombay, 
Bheemappa applied under this Act for regrant of the watan land, and the Dy. 
Commissioner of Dharwad District made the regrant in his fayour on 
30.11.1968. On 31.3.1969, he sold the land to appellant no. I and the father of 
appellant no. 2 under a registered sale deed. The land Tribunal under d1e 
Karnataka land Reforms Ad 1961 found it unnecessary to register the 
occupancy rights of the appellant.; in view of the sale. 
In 1976, respondent tiled a suit against Bheemappa aml 2other brothers 
for partition of the disputed propert~· and separate possession. He impleaded 
appellant.; l and 2 as defendants in the suit since the~· were in possession of the 
disputed lands. He contended that Bheemappa had sold the lands without the 
prior consent of his brothers, and for nor legal necessit)· of the family, and the 
E 
F 
G 
sale was \'oid ab initio. 
H 
779 
780 
Sl:PRJ:\1E Cot'.R'f REPORTS 
I I 993) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The MunsiffCourt granted a decree in favour of the respondent on it'> 
B 
c 
finding that the dispukd lands were Hindu joint family properties, that the 
sale was void ab initio for the reasons stated; and that the pica of the 
defendants-appellant'> that if the sale was mid the tenancy revived, was 
unacceptable. 
The Munsiff Court, and in appeal, the Civil Judge concurrentl~: held 
that the sale was void since sail· of' fragments was prohibited under the 
Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1966. 
A regular second appeal hefore the High Court was dismissed in limine. 
The appellant'> contended before this Court that if the sale was ab-initio 
void, the agricultural tenancy of the appellant'> revived. For the respondent'> 
it was submitted that the tenancy on lease hold right-. in the disputed lands 
held hy the appellants got nwrged in the sale effected in their farnur. When 
D 
that sale wasfound to be \"oid itdicl not have the effect of reviving the merged 
tenancy of the appellant'>, as would restore their tenancy right'> in the disputed 
lands. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : (1) The tenant-. being the persons deemed to be in possession of 
the disputed lands and entitled to continue in possession thereof, a partition 
decree could have been granted, in respect of such tenanted lands onl~· if 
permissible by law. (784-G) 
F 
(2) The court'> hclow having found that the sale deed was rnid because 
Bhecmappa could not have sold the unclh·iclcd interest of his brother, onl~· his 
1/4 undivided interest, in the disputed lands had to he regarded as having been 
sold by him. (784-H) 
G 
The lessors' entire interest or entire reversion in the disputed lands 
cannot therefore be regarded as having been sold under the sale deed of 31st 
March, J 969. From this, it follo\,·s that the lease-hold interest'> of the leases 
and the lessors entire re,·ersion could not have merged in one and the same 
person, so as to constitute merger envisaged under section 1 ll(d) of the 
Transfer of Property Act, 1982. For constituting merger under that provi-
H 
sion, the interest.; of the lessee and the interests of the lessor i11 the whole of the 
H.Y. RADDER, .. N.B. TALWAR [VENKATACHALA. 

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