T.S. Naganna vs Nallappa

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The Appellant was the Plaintiff before the trial Court seeking recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. It was claimed that the suit property was service inam land and the same was regranted in favour of the Appellant in the year 1993 and the Respondent herein was put in permissive possession of the said land. The suit was however contested and it was claimed by the Respondent that he had purchased the land under a registered sale deed of the year 1971. It was however the contention of the Appellant that he was a not a party to the said sale deed and the land having been regranted in the year 1993, it could not be said that the Appellant was a party to the sale deed of the year 1971 and therefore reliance placed on Syed Bhasheer Ahamed and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, in holding that the title of the purchaser even if defective as on the date of the purchase, would get cured by the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel. In view of the regrant of land in favour of the Appellant in the year 1993, the Court below having held that the title of the purchaser stood perfected is a misinterpretation of law as laid down in Basheer Ahmed''s case as the Appellant was never a party to the sale deed of the year 1971, This having been negatived, the Appellant is before this Court.

However, it is also on record that during the pendency of the appeal, the Appellant had executed a registered sale deed in respect of the very property as on 13.7.2007 in favour of one Chandrappa, son of Keshavamurthy. The lower appellate Court has therefore held that even if the contention of the Appellant could be accepted, the fact of a subsequent sale during the pendency of the appeal disentitles the Appellant for any relief in respect of the suit property. This observation would also appeal to this Court. In the sense, that the Appellant having disposed of the suit property under a registered sale deed, it would be for the purchaser to establish his title and claim for possession of the land as it stands on date. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the Appellant that he would be responsible for the purchaser of the property and therefore, he should be permitted to prosecute this appeal on the purported substantial question of law raised in this appeal Having regard to the admitted circumstance that the suit property has been sold during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, it is for the purchaser to secure his interest in the manner known to law.

Accordingly, there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal is rejected.