NI. PRA CHANNABASAVA D.S. MATADHIPATHIGALU KANNADA MUTT versus C.P. KAVEERAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 13-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 436 
A 
NI. PRA CHANNABASAVA D.S. MATADHIPATHIGALU 
~ 
KANNADA MUTT 
v 
C.P. KAVEERAMMA AND ORS. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1040-1053 of 2009 
B 
FEBRUARY 13, 2009 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ) 
~ 
" 
KARNATAKA CERTAIN INAMS ABOLITION ACT, 1977: 
·. 
c 
' 
S$. 4 (2) (b) and 1 O - Abolition of Ina ms - lnamdar 
regranted the land - Erstwhile mortgagee claiming the 
mortgage to have been revived consequently - Held: High 
Court was not justified in concluding that s. 43 of Transfer of 
D Property Act is relevant - Neither s. 43 of TP Act nor s. 10 of 
Karnataka Act has application to the facts of the case -Matter 
• 
.... 
remitted to High Court for consideration afresh - Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 .,... s. 43· - Doctrine of feeding the estoppel. 
A reliEJiQus institution, namely, Kannada Mutt, was 
~ granted Gertain Jagir lands. Upon abolition of lnams by 
virtue of Karnataka Certain lnams Abolition Act, 1977, the 
lands stood vested with the State Government. However, 
the appellant being the Matadhisathi of the Mutt was al-
.... 
lowed re-grant of the land, The respondents, who were 
.I. 
F the erstwhile mortgagees, claimed possession of the land 
in question contending that by virtue of order of re-grant 
in favoµr of the appellant, the earlier mort9age was re-
vived and possession of the land could not be granted to 
the appellant. When the matter reached the Division Bench 
G of the High Court in writ appeals, it held that s. 43 of the 
' 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applica_ble. Aggrieved, 
~ 
the Mathadhipati filed the appeals. 
·). .. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
H 
436 
J _,. 
! 
,-{·' 
NI. P. CHANNABASAVA D.S. MATADHIPATHIGALU KANNADA 437 
MUTT V. C.P. KAVEERAMMA AND ORS. 
HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of s.4 of the Karnataka A 
Certain lnams Abolition Act, 1977 makes it clear that 
notwithstanding any contract, all lnam tenures stood 
abolished and the consequences were the passing of the 
rights, title and interests as provided in s.4(2)(b). Section 
10 of the Act has no application to the facts of the case. B 
[para 6-7] [ 442-E, F; 443-B] 
Syed Bhasheer Ahamed and Ors. V State of Karnataka 
/LR 1994 Kar 159 - distinguished. 
1.2 The sine quo non for application of s.43 is that at C 
the initial stage the person should have fraudulently or 
erroneously represenfed that he is authorized to transfer 
certain immovable property or professes to transfer such 
property for consideration. Only then the question of 
option of the transferee arises in case the transferor 
acquires any interest in the property at any time during D 
which the contract of transfer subsists. Therefore, the 
High Court was not justified in concluding that s.43 is 
relevant. [para 6] [ 442-G, H; 443-A] 
2. Without expressing any opinion about the 
acceptability of any stand taken by the respondents, the E 
judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is 
remitted to it for consideration afresh. It is made clear that 
the issue relating to applicability of s.43 stands closed. 
[para 8] [444-8, CJ 
Case Law Reference 
ILR 1994 Kar 159 
distinguished 
para 6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
1040-1053 of 2009 
F 
G 
From the Judgement and Order dated 12.09.2007 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 1936-
40 & 1941-45 of 2005 
Rama Jois, G.V. Chandrshekar, N.K. Verma, Anjana, 
Chandrashekar, for the Appellant. 
H 
'r 
t 1
NI. P. CHANNABASAVA D.S. MATADl11PATHIGALU KANNADA 439 
( 
MUTT V. C.P. KAVEERAMMAAND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYATJ.] 
+ 
respondents claimed that by virtue of the order of re-grant in 
A 
favour of the appellant, the earlier mortgage was revived and 
Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to deliver possession to the 
appellant. The order of the Tahsildar for delivery of possession 
was quashed. 
There was an order of remand passed by a learned Single B 
Judge which was questioned by the respondents. The Writ 
Appeals were filed by the appellant on the ground that the scope 
>"· 
and ambit of Section 4 of the Act has not been considered. 
JI 
.. , 
Learned Single Judge found that the Tahsildar had not properly 
conducted enquiry and set aside the impugned order and c 
remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. Learned 
Single Judge further directed that the respondents 1 to 5 should 
be re-inducted to possession of the land subject to final result 
of the enquiry. The present appellant aggrieved by the order of 
the learned S

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