LAXMAPPA BHIMAPPA HULSGERI BY LRS. AND ORS. versus HANUMAPPA SHETTEPPA KORWAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 13-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,_ 
' 
LAXMAPPA BHIMAPPA HULSGERI BY LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
HANUMAPPA SHETTEPPA KORWAR AND ORS. 
APRIL 13, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND 
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; Section 133/Karnataka Land 
Reforms Act; Ss. 5, 132 & 133/Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 
1948; Section 64(3) : 
Suit for declaration of title of disputed /arid filed by son-Suit decreed 
by trial Court in respect of half share of suit /and-Reversed by first appellate 
Court holding that though first respondent and his mother possess proprietary 
rights in the suit land but these rights extinguished since vesting of the lands 
in Government from 1.3.1974, subject to rights of landlords and tenants 
thereon-Appeal allowed by High Court holding first respondent as a co-
owner entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land-Judgment recalled 
by the High Court but later confirmed its earlier view with certain additional 
reasons-On appeal, Held: The findings of the first appellate Court that since 
in the records of the Land Revenue Authority, the appellant/Vendee was a 
tenant, he would be treated as tenant but he had not acquired the title under 
the sale deeds which were invalid-However, the question whether he was a 
tenant, could not have been decided by it-It should have been decided by a 
Tribunal constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act-Hence, the decree 
passed by the Courts below set aside and matter remitted to Trial Court to . 
refer the question to Land Reforms Tribunal for adjudication-Parties to 
maintain status quo till disposal of the case by the Trial Court-Directions 
issued 
Recalling of Judgment by the Court-Effect of-Held: Entire judgment 
stood upset and not available for the Court to concur with the reasoning-
Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 
First respondent filed a declaratory suit against appellant (Vendee) 
for declaring himself and his younger brother as owners of the disputed 
land and for other incidental reliefs. He submitted that the land originally 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
93 
II 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004} SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A owned by his father, who had relinquished his rights in the property in 
favour of the first respondent and his ycunger brother on consideration 
by executing a registered deed dated 26.4.1960. Later, his father sold the 
same property/land by executing a registered sale deed dated 16.4.1963 
1
in favour of the appellant. However, the appellant claimed that father of 
.. 
B 
the first respondent borrowed certain sum of money from him and in lieu 
t
thereof created a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property in his 
favour and subsequently he borrowed further sum of money from him 
and executed an advance lease deed for a period of 60 years in respect of 
the suit land. Thus he was shown as tenant in the revenue records. Later, 
father and mother of the first respondent approached him, took a further 
i. 
c sum of money and executed registered sale deeds dated 26.4.60 and 
16.12.60 respectively in respect of certain portion of the suit property after 
obtaining requisite permission from the land Revenue Authority. 
Trial Court decreed the suit in respect of half share of the ·suit land. 
On appeal, findings of the trial Court were upset by the first Appellate 
D Court holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant 
became the tenant in respect of the entire land; that the relinquishment 
deed was not valid; that since mother of first respondent executed the sale 
deed in re~pect of certain portion of the land owned by her without 
obtaining requisite permission from the land Revenue Authority, no title 
E could be passed in that document in favour of the appellant; that first 
l-
respondent, and after death of his younger brother, his mother were the 
co-owners in respect of certain portion of the land but their proprietary 
rights became extinguished from l.3.I974 when the rights in the tenanted 
land had vested with the Government as per provisions of the Bombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. High Court allowed th'! second 
F appeal holding that first respondent as a co-owner of the suit land was 
entitled to the relief as claimed for recovery of possession of the suit 
property. Later, High Court recalled its order and finally disposed of the 
matter concurring with the earlier judgment giving additional reasons 
therefor. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court' 
HELD: I.I. The High C

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