AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. The parties to these petitions are the defendant and the plaintiff before the trial Court. Two I.As. came to be filed in O.S. 1539/2005. I.A.III was filed by the 2nd defendant - Muneerappa''s L.Rs. for rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 saying that no cause of action survives, therefore, the suit has to be rejected. I.A. VI in O.S.1539/2005 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff Savithramma seeking an order of injunction against the defendants not to alienate the property pending disposal of the suit. I.A. III was rejected and I.A. VI was allowed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petitions are filed.
It would be proper to narrate relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of these two writ petitions. One K. Narayanappa was the landlord of sy. No. 73 (old sy. No. 64) measuring 1 acre 9 guntas of Kattamnallur village and the same came to be leased in favour of one Muneerappa. Said Muneerappa sought for occupancy rights as a tenant and the same came to be rejected. At that point of time, Muneerappa approached this Court in W.P.309/85. Meanwhile, on 18.2.1983 said Narayanappa said to have sold the property in favour of one Krishnappa. However, the writ petition came to be allowed by remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the second round of enquiry before the land Tribunal, there was grant of occupancy rights in favour of Muneerappa and the same came to be challenged in W.P. 14157/05. The said matter came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and a recall application came to be filed. The same was dismissed and again to recall the dismissal of the recall application, an application is filed and the same seems to be pending.
When things stood as stated above, in the year 2005, the legal representatives of Narayanappa i.e. his daughter Smt. Savithramma filed the present suit against the tenants and also against Krishnappa the so called subsequent purchaser of the land who said to have purchased the land from her father Narayanappa. In the said suit, she challenged the sale deed on the ground that on account of collusion between Muneerappa and Krihnappa, the said sale deed came to be forged in favour of Krishnappa and said Krishnappa very conveniently agreed for grant of occupancy rights in favour of Muneerappa before the Tribunal inspite of serious objection raised by the legal representatives of owner Narayanappa that sale deed was a forged document. However, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights by virtue of a compromise. This is the subject matter of W.P. 14157/2005.
According to the tenant/defendant who is the petitioner before this Court, the learned Judge ought to have allowd I.A. III rejecting plaint itself in view of the fact that the tenancy rights in favour of Muneerappa came to be granted and no cause of action exists to fight the civil litigation. He also contends that the other prayer in I.A. VI not to alienate the property is also not justified in view of the tenancy issue having become final. Therefore, no lis exists between the present petitioner and the plaintiffs/respondents. The learned Judge after referring to all the facts and circumstances including the agitation and the controversy regarding the sale deed said to have been executed by Narayanappa in favour of Krishnappa opined that the Tribunal could not have gone into the issue of cancellation of sale deed as the issue has to be decided before civil Court. Hence he rejected I.A. III filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The reasoning of the learned Judge is just and proper. Even otherwise, though the writ petition as such is not yet restored, the fact remains, application to recall the dismissal of recall application in the writ petition is pending and the learned counsel for the respondent submits that it was purely on account of his ill-health said recall application came to be dismissed and he has filed his personal affidavit. According to him, even the dismissal of writ petition was due to ill-health of his client and there was justification why the writ petitioner was not present when the matter was taken up.
Be that as it may, the fact remains the suit filed before the trial Court is for cancellation of sale deed said to have been executed by father of Savitramma in favour of Krishnappa. The main argument of the plaintiffs is on account of forged sale deed. Krishnappa was obliged to compromise the litigation before the land Tribunal agreeing for grant of occupancy rights by a compromise. If once the forgery of the sale deed is established in a civil Court, automatically it would have some Impact on the question of compromise said to have been entered by Krishnappa with Muneerappa. In that view of the matter, the trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A. III.
Then coming to the relief sought in the connected writ petition so far as I.A. VI as the dispute of tenancy as well as the transfer of property by Narayanappa in favour of Krishnappa, the subject matter is pending before the trial Court, the learned Judge was justified in saying that the petitioner herein could not alienate the property by creating third party rights. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the opinion, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.