P.G. ESHWARAPPA versus M. RUDRAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 28-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.G. ESHWARAPPA 
v. 
M. RUDRAPPA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 28, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
Land Laws: 
Land Refmms Act, 1961 : Sections 22, 48-A, 129, 142-Land owner 
C selling the land after tenant refusing to purchase the land-Tenant asserting his 
1ight and denying title of purchase1~Suit filed by purchaser for declaration of 
title and for recovery of possession-Suit decreed-Tenant fo1feited his light 
to the tenancy-High Cowt concluded that since eviction of the respondents 
had taken place after the Act had come into force order of eviction was 
inoperative-It fwther held that since ·application was not considered i11 
D accordance with the provisions of the Act, tena11ts to be put back i11 posses-
sio11--0n appeal held, eviction of the tena11ts in execution of the decree passed 
by the Civil Cowt was clearly in violation of S.22-P1inciples of estoppel or 
res judicata do not apply where, to give effect to them would be to counter 
some statutmy direction or prohibition-Statutmy direction or prohibition 
E 
cannot be over- 1idden or defeated by a previous judgment between the pa1ties. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 
1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.90 of the Karnataka High 
F 
Court in W.P. No. 4044 of 1986. 
G 
R.S. Hegde for S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
S.S. Javali and P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated July 25, 1990 
of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 
4044/86. Admitted facts are that one Mohammed Khan was the original 
owner of an extent of 2 acres 37 gunthas of land in Survey No. 22/2 of 
H Arundi Village, Honnali Taluk, Shimoga District in Karnataka State. The 
322 
P.G.ESHWARAPPAv. M.RUDRAPPA 
323 
father of the respondents, Channabasappa was a tenant under him. A 
Mohammed Khan sold the land to the appellant for consideration after 
their father had refused to purchase the land. Subsequently, the appellant 
again got issued notice calling upon them to pay the . rent. Since the 
respondents' father had asserted his title and denied title of the appellant's 
father, he came to file a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of the B 
possession, which was decreed on September 28, 1959 by operation of 
Clause (g) of Section lll(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereby, he 
forfeited his right to the tenancy on September 28, 1959. It was upheld on 
appeal. 
It is claimed that appellant had executed the decree and came into 
possession of the land on April 13, 1967. Subsequently, the respondents' 
father filed an application before the Land Reforms Tribunal for posses-
c 
sion claiming as a tenant. That application came to be dismissed. Pending 
those proceeding, the Amendment Act 1 of 1974 (for short, the "Amend-
ment Act") came into force on March 1, 1974 which amended the Land D 
Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, the "Act") which had come into force in 1965. 
Application filed under Section 129 was declared abated in appeal on 
account of coming into force of the Amendment Act. Subsequently, 
another application under Section 48A car.:e to be filed. That has given 
rise to the present proceedings. When the matter was dismissed by the E 
Tribunal and came up before the High Court, a Division Bench of that 
Court in Writ Appeal No. 1051/1980 concluded that since the eviction of 
the respondents had taken place after the Act had come into force, an 
order of eviction obtained against the respondents was inoperative. Con-
sequently, an application had to be considered for eviction in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act. Since that was not done the Division Bench 
remitted the matter to the Tehsildar for reconsideration in accordance with 
the law. When the same came to be challenged in this Court in SLP 
2866/1981, by order dated February 19, 1982 this Court while upholding 
F 
the order of remand as legal, had given liberty to raise all the relevant 
question afresh. After remand, the claim of the respondents was rejected. G 
Ultimately, in the W.P. No. 4044/86 by the impugned judgment dated July 
25, 1990 the Division Bench has held that their eviction under the decree 
obtained in OS No. 57/58 was not effective by operation of Section 22(1) 
of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunals have committed error of law in 
refusing to restore possession of the land to the respondents. Therefore, H 
324 

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