A writ petition challenging orders refusing to refer a disputed sale deed to the Assistant Commissioner was dismissed. The Court held such matters are alien to the civil suit's adjudication and evidence from illegal sources remains admissible.
The writ petition (IA No.XXVI and XXVII) was dismissed; costs were made easy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.51318 OF 2015(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SADASHIVA POOJARY S/O LATE PAPPU KOTIYAN, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 65 YEARS, R/O GURU PANNAGA, NEAR SRI RAMA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAJOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) (BY SRI.SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)
... PETITIONER
AND:
NARASI POOJARTHI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
2
S/O LATE NARASI POOJARTHI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 8 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI RAMA POOJARY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 1 TO 8 ALL ARE R/O GURU PANNAGA, NEAR SRI RAMA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAJOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101.
W/O RAMA MOOLYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.9 AND 10 ARE R/O GURU PANNAGA, NEAR SRI RAMA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAJOOR VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101.
(NOTE: THE DEFENDANT NO.1 HAMEED BEARY HAS NOT BEEN ARRYED AS OPARTY IN THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION SINCE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPIRED AND MORE OVER HE WAS PLACED EXPARTE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE AS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT NO.1 IN THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION. HENCE ANY OFFICE OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD MAY BE OVERRULED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 PASSED ON IA.NO.XXVI AND ORDER DATED 20.04.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.XXVII IN O.S.NO.111 OF 2001 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVI JUDGE UDUPI AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.XXVI AND XXVII AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
Petitioner being the 2nd plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.111/2001 is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 03.12.2014, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby his application in I.A.No.26 for referring the subject registered sale deed of the land in question produced by the respondents in their evidence, for invalidation to the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Sec.83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by Act No.1 of 1971.
having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the
4
impugned order and the grounds on which it has been structured.
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) In a suit for injunctive relief what is essential to be seen is whether the petitioner is in the possession of the subject property or not; whether the sale deed which the respondents have pressed into evidence in support of their stand is liable to be invalidated or not, is alien to the adjudication of the suit.
(b) There is no duty cast on the court to refer the subject sale deed to the Assistant Commissioner for avoiding the sale transaction in terms of Sec.83 of the Act although such power may be arguably there with him; nothing prevents the petitioner from reporting the alleged illegal transaction to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration & for appropriate action in accordance with law.
(c) It has been the settled position of law of
evidence that even a document that has come into existence in violation of law is admissible in evidence if it is
5
otherwise admissible & relevant regardless of the illegality by which it is generated.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
Learned Judge of the court below is requested to accomplish the trial & disposal of the suit within a period of six months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.
Sd/JUDGE
Snb/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can intervene to refer a sale deed to the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in an ongoing civil suit for injunctive relief.
SADASHIVA POOJARY S/O LATE PAPPU KOTIYAN
NARASI POOJARTHI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS REPRESENTED BY RAMA POOJARY
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
