Dismissed

Mr. H. Jayawantha Shenoy v. Mrs Channamma

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023MFA/2700/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal challenged the Reference Court's order rejecting the appellant's claim to compensation for acquired land. The court held that the unregistered agreement of sale, executed after the preliminary notification, did not confer any right to compensation. The arbitration award and power of attorney were found to be doubtful. The appeals were dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr. H. Jayawantha Shenoy Vs Mrs Channamma — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶6

M.F.A. No.2700 OF 2016 (LAC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

M.F.A. NO.2698/2016 AND MFA NO.2699/2016 (LAC)

¶9

IN MFA NO. 2700/2016

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

1 . MR. H. JAYAWANTHA SHENOY S/O. LATE. H. VISHWANATH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 43, BASAWESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶12

ALSO AT NO.85/1, 1ST FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI.AJIT.P.B, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MRS. CHANNAMMA W/O. NANJUNDAIAH,

¶17

¶18

SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

¶19

MRS. DODDACHANNAVEERAMMA D/O. LATE. CHENNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶20

MR. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE. NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶21

2(A) MRS.NANJAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶22

2(B) MRS.RAMYA D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶23

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 120.

¶24

SHIVARUDRAMURTHY, S/O. LATE CHANNAMMA, AND NANJUNDAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶25

MRS. GOWRAMMA W/O. LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶26

MRS. SWETHA A.S. D/O. LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶27

¶28

VINAY A.S. S/O. LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶29

BHARATH A.S. S/O. LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶30

ALL ARE R/AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE KASAB HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.

¶31

7 . CHIKKA CHANNAVEERAMMA D/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH, W/O. RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 561 203. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,

¶32

8 . GIRIJAMMA D/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR CARMEL SCHOOL, DASARA BEEDI DEVANAHALLI TOWN DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

¶33

9 . MR. T. GOPAL FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR TO TALUK OFFICE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 110.

¶34

¶35

10 . T. NANJUNDAPPA FATHER NAME NOT KNOW TO THE APPELLANT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶36

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NEAR TO TALUK OFFICE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶37

SMT. CHINNAKKA W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA @ GATTAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶38

11 . GATLAPPA, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶39

12 . MUNISHAMAPPA S/O. GATLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶40

13 . MR. MUNIRAMAPPA S/O. GATLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶41

14 . MR. MUNINARASAPPA S/O. GATLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶42

15 . MUNIYAPPA S/O. GATLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶43

¶44

16 . CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA S/O. GATLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ARASINAKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110. AMENDED CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DTD.08.08.2022 RESPONDENT NO.11TH 16TH ARE DELETED

¶45

17 . MR. K.C. REDDY S/O. LATE BALARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. 2990/C, 13TH MAIN ROAD, HAL II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.

¶46

MR. VEERABHADRAIAH, S/O. NANJEMARIYAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶47

18 . GOWRAMMA

¶48

W/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

¶49

SINCE DECEASED AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DTD.19.07.2016 AND HER LEGAL HEIRS ARE AN RECORD AS RESPONDENTS NO.19 TO 25 AND RESPONDENT NO.27 TO 29

¶50

¶51

19 . NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶52

20 . CHANNABASAMMA W/O. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶53

21 . SAVITHRAMMA W/O. MALLIKARJUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶54

22 . BHAGYAMMA W/O. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶55

23 . LEELAVATHI @ LINGAMMA W/O. JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶56

24 . PREMA W/O. RUDRARADYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶57

25 . PARVATHAMMA W/O. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶58

ALL ARE R/AT DVM COLONY, BENANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110.

¶59

26 . MR. NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶60

KALA @ CHANDRAKALA, D/O. NANJUNDAIAH,

¶61

¶62

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DEVANAHALLI TOWN, NEAR CARMEL SCHOOL DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.

¶63

27 . RUDRAMMA W/O. VEERABHADRAIAH, W/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶64

28 . CHANNAMMA

¶65

D/O VEERAQBHDRAIAH W/O. CHIKKAMARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT MAHADEVA KODIGEHALLI, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 091.

¶66

29 . A.V. GOWRAMMA

¶67

D/O VEERABHADRAIAH W/O. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT RAMDEV BUILDING SHADDHASHIV MASTER ROAD, BETTAHALSURU, KADUGODI POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶68

30 . RAMYA

¶69

D/O. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING BEHIND BASAVA BHAVAN, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN - 562 103.

¶70

31 . CHIKKA CHANNAVEERAMMA D/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH, W/O. RAJASHEKARAIAH,

¶71

¶72

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE, DODDBALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 103.

¶73

DELETED V/O DTD.01.10.2021

¶74

32 . GIRIJAMMA W/O RUDRAMURTHY D/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT DASARA BEEDI NEAR OXFORD SCHOOL, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

¶75

33 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT) I FLOOR, VITC BUILDING, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶76

…RESPONDENTS

¶77

(BY SRI.VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.B.G.NANJUNDARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3-R6 R19-R25 & R30; SRI.D.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R8, R27 & R29; SMT.DAYAMANI.S, ADVOCATE FOR R26; SRI.ASHOK N.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R33, R19 TO R25 & R27 TO R29 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R18; R17 SERVED UNREPRESENTED; SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R27, R28 & R29, R2(A & B) PROPOSED LR'S OF DECEASED R2; R31 & R32 ARE DELETED V/O DTD.01.10.2021; NOTICE TO R9, R10 & R16 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD.28.10.2021; R11-R16 DELETED V/O DTD.8.8.2022;

¶78

¶79

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2006 PASSED IN LAC NO.87/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C, DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶80

IN MFA NO. 2698/2016

¶81

BETWEEN:

¶82

1 . MR. H. JAYAWANTHA SHENOY S/O. LATE. H. VISHWANATH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 43, BASAWESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU-560023.

¶83

...APPELLANT

¶84

(BY SRI.AJIT.P.B, ADVOCATE)

¶85

AND:

¶86

MR.VEERABHADRAIAH, S/O NANJEMARIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶87

1.GOWRAMMA

¶88

W/O LATE VEERABHADAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶89

NAGARAHNAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶90

¶91

CHANNABASAMMA W/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶92

SAVITHRAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶93

BHAGYAMMA W/O VISHWANAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶94

LEELAVATHI @ LINGAMMA W/O JAGADEESH AGED ABOU 49 YEARS

¶95

PREMA W/O RUDRARADYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶96

PARVATHAMMA W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 EARS

¶97

1 ST TO 8^TH RESPONDENTS ARE R/O AT DVM COLONY BENANAHALL, DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562110.

¶98

MRS. CHANNAMMA W/O CHIKKAMARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶99

MRS.RUDRAMMA

¶100

W/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶101

9^TH AND 10^TH RESPONDENTS ARE

¶102

R/O MAHADEVAKODIGEHALLI

¶103

¶104

JALAHOBLI

¶105

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 460 042.

¶106

MR. RAMAKRISHNA S/O VEERABHADAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562110.

¶107

MR. MAHADEVA

¶108

S/O LATE B.M. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NEAR KADAPPASWAMY MUTT BANGALOE 560 023.

¶109

A.N. GIRIJAMMA W/O RUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT DASARA BEEDH DEVANAHALLU TOWN 562 110.

¶110

MRS. RUDRAMMA D/O VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶111

MRS. CHENNAMMA D/O VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶112

14^TH AND 15^TH RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDENTS OF MAHADEVA KODIGEHALL JALAHOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 064.

¶113

MRS. GOWRAMMA W/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT RAMACHAR BULDING

¶114

¶115

SADASHIVAIAH MASTER'S ROAD BETTAHALASUR KADUGODI POST BANGALOE 560 067.

¶116

MRS. CHIKKA CHANNAVEERAMMA W/O RAJASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/ATT RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE DODDABALLAPUR TALUK 56 203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶117

KALA @ CHANDRAKALA D/O NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT DEVANAHALLI TOWN DEVANAHALLI TTALUK 562 110.

¶118

MRS. DODDACHANNAVVEERAMMA D/O LAE CHENNAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶119

MR. NAGARAJAU

¶120

S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶121

20a SMT. NANJAMMA

¶122

W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶123

20b RAMYA

¶124

D/O LAE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶125

BOTH ARE RESIDNG AT

¶126

R/ATT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TTALUK 562 110.

¶127

¶128

MR. SHVARUDRAMURTHY S/O LATE CHANNAMMA AND NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOU 49 YEARS

¶129

19^TH TO 21^ST RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDENTS OF ANNESHWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALL TALUK 5620

¶130

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (INTERNAIONAL AIRPORT) 1^ST FLOOR VITTC BUILDNG KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶131

MRS. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE SHVARUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶132

MRS. SWETHA A.S. D/O LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶133

VINAY A.S.

¶134

S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUTT 27 YEARS

¶135

BHARATH A.S. S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶136

ALL ARE R/AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALL TALUK 56 2110.

¶137

…RESPONDENTS

¶138

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY – ADVOCATE FOR R14 – R16, R20 (a-b) LRS’ OF DECEASED R20; R-1 DECEASED (R2 TO R11 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1); SMT. DAYAMANI .S – ADVCATE FOR R18;

¶139

¶140

SRI.D.S.MALIPATIL – ADVOATE FOR R10, R13, R16, R17 AND R23 – R26; SRI.VIVEK SUBBAREDDY – SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.NANJUNDARADHYA B.G- ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8 & R19; SRI.ASHOK N NAYAK – ADVOCAT FOR R22 V/O DATED 01.10.2021, R23 TO R26 ARE LRS’ OF DECEASED R21; V/O DTED 28.10.2021 – NOTICE TO R12 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶141

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2006 PASSED IN LAC NO.82/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C, DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶142

IN MFA NO. 2699/2016

¶143

BETWEEN:

¶144

1 . MR. H. JAYAWANTHA SHENOY S/O. LATE. H. VISHWANATH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 43, BASAWESHWARA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU. ALSO AT NO.85/1, 1ST FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶145

...APPELLANT

¶146

(BY SRI. AJITH.P.B, ADVOCATE)

¶147

AND

¶148

MR NANJUNDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶149

¶150

DODDACHANNAVEERAMMA D/O LATE CHENNAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶151

NAGARAJU S/O LAE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶152

2(A) MRS. NANJAMMA W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶153

2(B) MRS. RAMYA D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶154

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶155

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRCT 562 120.

¶156

MRS. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶157

MRS. SWETHA A.S. D/O LATE SHIVARUDAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶158

VINAY A.S. S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶159

BHARATH A.S. S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶160

ALL ARE R/AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE

¶161

¶162

KASABA HOBL DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562 –

¶163

MR. VEERABHADRAIAH S/O NANJEMARYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENATIVES

¶164

GOWRAMMA W/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶165

NAGARATHNAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶166

CHANNABASAMMA W/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶167

SAVITHRAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶168

BHAGYAMMA W/O VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶169

LEELAVATHI@ LINGAMMA W/O JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶170

PREMA W/O RUDRARADYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶171

PARVATHAMMA W/O SHVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶172

¶173

1^ST TO 8^TH RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT DVM COLONY BENANAHALLI DEVANAHALL TALUK 56 210

¶174

MRS. CHANNAMMA W/O CHKKAMARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶175

MRS RUDRAMMA W/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶176

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MAHADEVA KODIGEHALL JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 099.

¶177

GOWRAMMA

¶178

W/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/ AT BETHRA KADUGODI POST K.R. PURAM HOBL BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560 067.

¶179

SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O NANJUNDAIAH

¶180

SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶181

CHIKKACHANNAVEERAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH W/O RAJESHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESDING AT RAJAGHATTA VLLAGE DODDABALLAPUTR TALUK BANGALORE

¶182

RURAL DISTRICT 561203

¶183

¶184

GIRIJAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR CARMEL SCHOOL DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI 561203

¶185

20.	KALA @ CHNDRAKALA
	D/O NANJUNDAIAH
	AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
	R/AT DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
	NEAR CARMEL SCHOOL
	DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562110

¶186

21.	MAHADEV
	S/O LATE B.M. NANJUNDAPPA
	AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
	RESIDING AT NO 13, II CROSS,
	NEAR KADAPPASWAMY MUTT
	BANGALORE 560023

¶187

RAMYA D/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING BEHIND BASAVABHAVAN, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN 561203

¶188

23.	CHIKKACHANNAVEERAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH W/O RAJASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
	RESDING AT RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
	BENAGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562103
24.	GIRIJAMMA W/O RUDRAMURTHY D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶189

¶190

RESIDING AT DASARABEEDI

¶191

NEAR OXFORD SCHOOL DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI-562110

¶192

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT) 1 FLOOR, VITC BUILDING, KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶193

RESPONDENTS

¶194

(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBAREDDY – SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NANJUNDARADHYAB.G – ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 – R6, R8-R14 & R22; SRI. D. S. MALIPATIL – ADOCATE FOR R16-19; SMT. DAYAMANI S – ADVOCATE FOR R20; SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK – ADVOCATE FOR R25; SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDDY – ADVOCATE FOR R15 – R17; R2(A & B) OF LR’S OF DECEASED R2; R23, R24 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED; R7 – DECEASED (R8 TO R17 ARE LRS OF R7) V/O DATED 28.10.2021, NOTICE TO R21 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶195

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2006 PASSED IN LAC NO.83/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C, DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶196

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT KALABURAGI BENCH, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶197

¶198

JUDGMENT

¶199

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02-01-2006 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in LAC No. 82/2006, LAC No. 83/2006 and LAC No.87/2006, the appellants have approached this Court in appeals in MFA No.2700/2016, MFA No.2699/2006 and in MFA No.2698/2006 seeking to set aside the same and directing the concerned respondent to release the compensation amount in the respective appeals.

¶200

The land in Sy.No.32 measuring 4 acres each,

¶201

totally measuring 12 acres situated at Anneshwara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB as per the final notification under Section 28(4) of KIADB for the purpose of formation of International Airport and awards came to be passed on 21-1-2002 for Rs.20,00,000/- each. Since there was a dispute between the claimants in respect of the said compensation amounts, the same has been deposited before the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, the

¶202

¶203

land Acquisition officer has made reference to the jurisdictional Court under Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. These references were taken up by the jurisdictional Court in LAC No.82/2006, 83/2006 and 87/2006 respectively.

¶204

On issuance of notice by the reference court, the rival claimants appeared through their respective counsels in all the matters. In LAC No.82/2006, claimant No.3 filed the claim statement, in LAC No.83/2006, claimant No.1 to 3 filed the claim statement and in LAC No.87/2006, claimants No. 1 to 5 and 7 filed their claim statement. In LAC No.82/2006, initially there were only 5 claimants and later, claimant Nos. 6 to 13 have been impleaded and during the pendency of the reference petition, claimant No.1 died and his legal heirs were brought on record. Similarly, in LAC No.83/2006 claimant Nos. 6 to 8 have been impleaded at later date. In LAC No.87/2006, claimant Nos. 9 to 14 have been impleaded at later date.

¶205

In all these three LAC matters, Sri. H. Jayawanth Shenoy, was claimant No.3, claimant No.3 and claimant

¶206

¶207

No.2 respectively, filed common claim statement. He contended that, he had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.32 totally measuring 12 acres of Anneswara village, Devanahalli Taluk. It was contended that as per the Arbitration proceeding and award dated 10-9-1987 he was in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as lawful owner and arbitral award has been passed in favour of power of attorney holder Jayavanh Shenoy. He contended that the arbitrator, satisfied about the power of attorney executed by Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma, who were holders of the lands to the extent of 4 acres each, and the award came to be passed which remain unchallenged so far. Inter-alia, he also contended that the arbitration agreement was dated 10-07-1997. Therefore, contending that the arbitration award is binding on the parties, the other claimants who are deriving title under said Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma have no right to claim the compensation, he sought for passing of the award in his favour.

¶208

¶209

The claimant No.2 in LAC No.83/2006 (claimant

¶210

No.7 in LAC No.87/2006) filed claim statement stating that 8 acres of land in survey No.32 was purchased in the name of Smt. Channamma, the wife of Nanjundaiah when

¶211

he and Veerabhadraiah were in a joint family. The remaining 04 acres of land in survey No.32 was granted in the name of the claimant No.2 Veerabhadraiah and later, there was a partition among the said Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Basaiah. Thereafter, the said Basaiah, through his son, had sold 4 acres of land in favour of Veerabhadraiah and Nanjundaiah and as such, they became owners to the extent of 6 acres each in survey No.32.

¶212

He further contended that, later the entire land measuring 12 acres has been acquired by the KIADB for establishment of the International Airport. The compensation amount has been deposited in the respective cases on account of the dispute between the claimants. It is contended that Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma have not executed any

¶213

¶214

transaction in respect of the said land with Jayawanth Shenoy or anybody else. It was alleged that Jayawanth Shenoy had created documents without any right, title or interest. Therefore, he contended that Veerabhadraiah is entitled for compensation amount in respect of 2 acres each in all the three cases and the remaining 2 acres each in all the three cases is entitled by his brother Nanjundaiah and his wife Channamma.

¶215

In LAC No.87/2006, claimant No.5 appeared

¶216

before the Reference Court and filed a memo to the effect that she has no right, title or interest over survey No.32 to the extent of 4 acres. However, claimant No.3 and 4 in LAC No.87/2006 contended that 4 acres of land was granted to their mother Rangamma on 15-2-1962 and Chinnakka had purchased it on 25-9-1975 before the expiry of the non alienation period and therefore, the said sale deed is not valid and as such they are entitled for compensation.

¶217

The claimant No.1 Channamma in LAC

¶218

No.87/2006, filed claim statement stating that under the partition deed dated 15-5-1968, Veerabhadraiah acquired

¶219

¶220

4 acres, Basaiah acquired 4 acre and Nanjundaiah was allotted 4 acres in survey No.32. She has stated that revenue records standing in her name and she has no objection to release the compensation in the name of Nanjundaiah, her husband.

¶221

In LAC No.83/2006, PW1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P16were marked. In LAC 87/2006 PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked. Thereafter, all the three LAC matters were clubbed together and evidence was recorded in LAC 83/2006. In that case PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P53 were marked. The Reference Court has also observed in para 22 of its impugned judgment that documents marked in LAC No.83, 87 of 2006 are also marked in LAC No.83/2006 therefore the evidence in the said matter is treated as common evidence.

¶222

After hearing counsels appearing for the parties and on the perusal of the records, the Reference Court held that the legal heirs of Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah are entitled for equal share in all the three references and

¶223

¶224

rejected the claim of Jayawanth Shenoy and other claimants.

¶225

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellantJayawanth Shenoy has approached this court in these appeals.

¶226

The appellant contends that the Reference court erred in concluding that the appellant had failed to prove the agreement of sale on account of the legal heirs of Nanjundaiah, Veerabhadraiah and Channamma disputed the agreement of sale and general power of attorney which are at Exs.P13 and P14. It is contended that the Reference court has not considered the evidence on record and even though the PW1 had categorically admitted her signature on Ex.P13-agreement, it was termed suspicious and unreliable. It is contended that though there is no pleadings as regards the arbitration award being vitiated by fraud etc., the trial court erroneously termed the arbitration award as an out come of the fraud. It failed to notice that the arbitration award had not been challenged by anybody under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

¶227

¶228

Conciliation Act. It was also contended that nowhere the general power of attorney or the agreement of sale had been questioned by the other claimants and even the arbitration agreement was also not challenged anywhere. It is contended that the trial court was not justified in relying on the decision in the case of S. Kesari Hanuman Goud Vs. Anjum Jehan and others to conclude that the agreement holder in respect of the acquired land had no right to compensation. It was not proper on the part of the Reference Court to hold that the sale agreement being subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary notification, the appellant could not have claimed any right in the property. It is alleged that the land owners entered into an agreement without disclosing the proposed acquisition of the land.

¶229

The appellant has raised exactly similar contentions in all these appeals.

¶230

On issuance of notice, respondents 1, 3 to 6, 19 to 25 and 30, and respondents 7, 8, 27 and 29, 26, 33, 27, 28 and 29 have appeared through their counsels.

¶231

¶232

Respondents 11 to 16, 31 and 32 are deleted vide order dated 8-8-2022 and 1-10-2021 respectively and notice to R9,10 and 16 are held sufficient in in MFA No.2700/2016. These respondents are also the respondents in connected appeals. The appeals came to be admitted on 30-09-2022 and the Reference Court records have been received and we have perused the same.

¶233

The submissions by learned counsel Sri Ajith P.B. learned counsel for appellant in all the appeals, learned Senior Counsel Sri Vivek Subbareddy, appearing for Sri B.G. Nanjundaradhya for respondent No.1, 3 to 6, 19 to 25 and 30, Sri. D.S. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7,8,27 and 29, Smt. Dayamani S., learned counsel appearing for R26, Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.33 and Sri C. Shankar reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 27, 28 and 29, who are also the counsel for respective respondents in connected appeals were heard.

¶234

¶235

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶236

in all these appeals has submitted that the Reference Court by its judgment dated 2-1-2016 has rejected the claim of the appellant for three reasons:

¶237

The first is that the appellant failed to prove the agreement of sale dated 16-5-1995 and the general power of attorney executed in favour of the brother of the claimant/appellant is not registered. The second reason is that the agreement holder in respect of the acquired land has no right to claim compensation by relying upon the decision in the case of S. Kesari Hanuman Goud Vs. Anjum

¶238

Jehan and others¹ and the third reason is that, the arbitration award is vitiated by fraud. He tried to explain his contentions in respect of the above three reasons assigned by the Reference Court. He submitted that the Reference Court has completely ignored the fact that the receipt of entire sale consideration by the land owners; and they agreeing that if the land is acquired, they are not entitled for any compensation but the appellant is entitled

¶239

1 (2013) 12 SCC 64

¶240

¶241

for receiving the entire compensation; and therefore, the agreement for arbitration was plausible; and legal heirs did not dispute the agreement of sale and general power of attorney during the life time of their parents. He submitted that the Reference Court while relying on the judgment reported in S. Kesari Hanuman Goud’s case Supra, has not considered the covenants of the agreement of sale. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW1 on record has been ignored by the Reference Court wherein the she has admitted the signature of her father on Ex.P13. Therefore, the observations that the non examination of the witnesses to the sale agreement is contrary to the evidence on record.

¶242

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Arul Mighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singirigudi Vs. Vs. Union of India and others² wherein, it was held that “the Land acquisition officer has to make a reference to the

¶243

2 (1996) 6 SCC 408

¶244

¶245

court under Section 30 and on such reference, the Court has to decide the dispute between the parties.”

¶246

He then relied on the decision in the case of Smek Marboh Vs. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council³ rendered by Meghalaya High Court. He has drawn our attention to para 21 wherein, it was held that “it was the duty of the Judge to whom the reference was made under Section 30 to decide the question of title between all the persons claiming a share in the compensation.” It was held that even when the civil suit has been filed on the question of title, the Land Acquisition Judge is not competent to stay the proceedings till the decision of the Civil Court, which amounts to refusal of exercise of jurisdiction under 30 of the said Act.

¶247

He then relied on the decision in the case Smt. Narasamma and another Vs. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and others⁴ (Single Judge’s decision) wherein, it was held that Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, provides for the agreement

¶248

3 2014 SCC Online Meghalaya 57.

¶249

4ILR 2003 Karnataka 4462

¶250

¶251

holder to claim damages/compensation as they are not in a position to file a suit for specific performance of contract since the very land vested with the State Government. Therefore, it was held that the agreement holders are entitled to maintain an application u/s 30 of Land Acquisition Act, even though they have not filed a separate suit for recovery of money by way of damages for compensation.

¶252

Then he relied on the decision in the case of Sukhbir Vs. Ajith Singh⁵ wherein, it was held that “ when the buyer expresses his readiness and willingness to perform the said contract in a suit for specific performance thereof, and becoming entitled to decree of specific performance, though the final decree of specific performance could not be passed before the acquisition took place”. It was also observed that the relief by modifying the trial court’s decree for specific performance, as said decree was passed after acquisition had taken place, by alternative decree for compensation under Land Acquisition Act is permissible. It was held that

¶253

5 (2021) 6 SCC 54,

¶254

¶255

the buyer under the contract for sale would be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the owner/vendor and thus, such buyer is entitled to the entire amount of the compensation. It is relevant to note that the buyer had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract to enforce such contract of sale. In the case on hand, the appellant has not filed any such suit for the enforcement of the specific performance of the contract. Therefore, the claim under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is in the domain of the Reference Court and it is only in respect of the agreement of sale.

¶256

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the agreement of sale general power of attorney and the evidence of PW1. He has submitted that the signature of the executants has been identified by PW1 and therefore, the payment of the money and agreement of sale has also been proved by the appellants. Therefore, he submitted that the reference court has erred in rejecting the claim of the appellants herein.

¶257

¶258

Per contra, learned Senior counsel Sri. Vivek

¶259

Subba reddy for Sri B.G.Nanjundaradhya, appearing for respondents 1, 3 to 6, 19 to 25 and 30, contended that Sections 30 and 31 is to be treated as suit and finality has to be given. He submitted that the agreement of sale does not confer title and the arbitration clause is based on general power of attorney and therefore, the arbitral award is collusive award and it cannot be relied upon. He submits that Reference Court has considered all the aspects and therefore, the appeals have to be dismissed.

¶260

The learned counsel Sri C. Shankar reddy appearing for respondent Nos. 27 to 29 submitted that the Reference Court has considered all the relevant facts. He submitted that the general power of attorney is manipulated and fabricated and at one point, the general power of attorney mentions the name of Yashavanath and at another place, it mentions the name of Jayawanth. Therefore, he contends that it was a case wherein the Reference Court ought to have initiated the criminal prosecution, but for the best reasons, it has refrained from

¶261

¶262

doing so. Therefore, he contends that Exs.P13 to 16 are invalid documents, as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court.

¶263

Learned counsel Smt. Dayamani S., appearing

¶264

for respondent No.26 has also adopted the arguments by learned counsels Sri. Vivek Subbareddy Senior counsel for Sri.B.G.Nanjundaradhya, and Sri. C. Shankar Reddy and has contended that the appeal is bereft of any merits.

¶265

It is relevant to note that the claim of the land

¶266

owners and their version is that, 4 acres of land in Sy.No.32 was initially purchased by one Nanjundaiah and another 4 acres was purchased by Veerabhadraiah and remaining 4 acres were purchased in the name of Channamma, wife of Nanjundaiah, when all of them were in joint family. They had another brother by name Basaiah, who is mentally ill. Later in the partition, 4 acres each of the land was Allotted to Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Basaiah. Later the said Basaiah sold his 4 acres of land in favour of Veerabhadraiah and Nanjundaiah and as such Veerabhadraiah and Nanjundaiah who were earlier owners

¶267

¶268

to the extent of four acres each, acquired another two acres each and ultimatley, they had acquired 6 acres each in Sy.No.32. This aspect has not been disputed by anybody. However, at the time of acquisition of the property, the Land Acquisition Officer seems to have taken into consideration that the lands were standing in the names of Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma and therefore, three awards have been passed determining the compensation.

¶269

It is the further case of the claimants that later the lands were slated for acquisition and preliminary notification under Sec 28(1) of KIADB Act (which is in pari materia with Sec 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act 1894) was issued on 7-7-1992. The dispute now which has arisen is out of an alleged agreement of sale executed by said Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma in favour of the appellant Jayawanth Shenoy. The said Jayawanth Shenoy is claiming compensation in respect of the entire 12 acres of land on the basis of agreement of sale at Ex.P13 dated 16-5-1995.

¶270

¶271

The said document Ex.P13 discloses that on 16-5-1995, the said Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma had entered to an agreement with Jayawanth Shenoy for a sum of Rs.8,40,000/-. According to Ex.P13, the entire sale consideration amount was paid. It is significant to note that the attesting witnesses to this document were not examined by the claimant/appellant Jayawanth Shenoy. In Ex.P13, there is also a signature alleged to be of one Chandrashekhar as vendor. It is not known who the said Chandrashekar is.

¶272

Be that as it may, it is evident that when the property was standing in the name of Basaiah pursuant to the family partition, son of Basaiah i.e. Nanjundappa has executed a sale deed as per Ex.P15 to the extent of 4 acres. Therefore, it is evident that Channamma was nowhere concerned to Survey No.32 or the 4 acres of land which she had purchased. Therefore, it seems that by taking note of the fact that the name of Channamma appears in the record of rights, the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award in her favour. However, it is to be

¶273

¶274

noted that when Jayawanth Shenoy wanted to purchase the property to the extent of 12 acres, he do not make enquiries as to in whose name the 12 acres of land was standing and he enters into an agreement in the year 1995 with Nanjundaiah, Veerabhadraiah and Channamma. There is no explanation by Jayawanth Shenoy in this regard.

¶275

It is pertinent to note that the said Jayawanth Shenoy makes a reference to the arbitrator on the basis of an alleged arbitration agreement. The said arbitration agreement is produced at Ex.P16. In Ex.P16, it is evident that it was not with Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma, but it was entered with one Yashvanth Shenoy allegedly who was the power of attorney holder of Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma. On the basis of such arbitration agreement, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator passes an award as per Ex.P15. Curiously, the Arbitrator, nowhere refers to the power of attorney executed by Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma in favour of

¶276

¶277

Yashwanth Shenoy. The award is as if, the said Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma had personally appeared before him. Nevertheless, the award mentions that, he had issued notice, but they had not appeared.

¶278

The arbitration agreement refers to general power of attorney executed by Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma. The said general power of attorney is produced at Ex.P14. In Ex.P14, there have been certain manipulations. At the beginning while describing parties to the General Power of attorney, it is stated that one ‘Jashvanth shenoy’ is the attorney and at the bottom of the first page, the name of ‘Jayawanth Shenoy’ is mentioned. In the body of the general power of attorney, it was mentioned as ‘Jayawanth Shenoy’ clearly and categorically. Further the said Jayawanth shenoy or Yashvanth shenoy have not at all signed power of attorney to express his acceptance. Therefore, Ex.P14 is doubtful as it refers to the name of ‘Jashvanth shenoy’ or ‘Jayawanth Shenoy’.

¶279

¶280

Not only this, there is another discrepancy. The arbitral award is in favour of Jayawanth Shenoy. In the said general power of attorney, it is stated that Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma have executed the same in favour of Yashvanth shenoy and the name of ‘Yashvanth Shenoy’ was written by erasing some other name. In the cross- examination, PW6 admits that there is a correction as ‘Yashvanth Shenoy’ and he also admits that the name of ‘Jayawanth Shenoy’ was written in the last line of the agreement. Therefore, prima- facie the said document recitals are not correct. The said discrepancy has not been explained by either PW6 or PW7. The reference court has dealt with this aspect in para 33 and 34 of the judgment. Thus, it is evident that the genesis of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award itself is doubtful.

¶281

That apart, another glaring circumstance is that, the said agreement of sale has been entered into after the preliminary notification. If at all the agreement holder/purchaser, Jayawanth Shenoy was diligent, he

¶282

¶283

would have ascertained that whether the said Channamma still remains as owner of 4 acres of land. Therefore, it is evident that agreement of sale is not with an intention of purchasing 4 acres of land, but with an intention to claim compensation only. It is evident that in 1994 preliminary notification under 28(1) of KIADB Act has been issued. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the agreement was not with an intention to purchase the property but only with an intention to claim compensation arising out of the same.

¶284

In S. Kesari Hanuman Goud’s case, the land owner had entered into an agreement of sale and when failed to execute sale deed, a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by agreement holder. In the meanwhile, the land owner had executed sale deed in favour of others and a portion was also acquired. The agreement holder had received the compensation. It was held that no rights had accrued in favour of the agreement holder and the compensation was ordered to be refunded to the land owner. This decision has a direct bearing in respect of the claim made by the said Jayawanth Shenoy.

¶285

¶286

It is evident that the agreement of sale at Ex.P13 is unregistered and it does not create any irreversible right in favour of the purchaser. The possession had not been handed over to the purchaser, for which, the necessary stamp duty was liable to be paid. Therefore, Ex.P13 cannot be said to have created any substantial right to the purchaser of the property. Hence, as on the date of notification, it was the said Veerabhadraiah and Nanjundaiah who had an existing right. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had made the award, including the name of Channamma. It may be true that the Channamma has relinquished her right in the family property in the partition, later it was allotted to Basaiah. Thereafter son of Basaiah sold the property in favour of Veerabhadraiah and Nanjundaiah and this aspect has not been disputed by anybody including Channamma. However, it is relevant that according Jayawanth Shenoy, Channammma had entered into agreement, but as on the date of agreement, she had no right in the suit schedule property and therefore, it appears that the agreement of sale was not

¶287

¶288

genuine one. This aspect has been considered by the Reference Court and it cannot be said to be either perverse or arbitrary.

¶289

This takes us to the question, whether the Land Acquisition Officer could have referred the dispute under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Reference Court? It is evident that, appellant Jayawanth Shenoy submitted the arbitral award to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of entire 12 acres of land which were part of the three awards passed in favour of Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, invoking Section 30 referred the matter to the Reference Court. It is evident that when Special Land Acquisition Officer is called upon to decide the beneficiary he was right in his jurisdiction to refer the matter to the reference court. The Reference Court, acting within the purview of Section 30 of LA Act exercised its jurisdiction and decided the matter. Obviously, reference court could not have gone into the challenge to the arbitral award. However, the reference

¶290

¶291

court was justified in considering the rival claim since the arbitral award emanates from arbitral agreement which came into existence on the basis of the general power of attorney. Obviously, learned arbitrator has not at all seen the power of attorney. Nowhere has he referred to the power of attorney. The learned arbitrator mentions that Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma were represented by an advocate. It is not known whether the pleadings were signed by them or by the power of attorney holder. Therefore, the Reference Court was justified in considering the arbitral agreement which is at Ex.P16. Obviously, Ex.P16 is between the power of attorney holder and Jayawanth Shenoy. It is evident that there is no mention of the address of the power of attorney holder and for which, we have to refer to the power of attorney wherein, it is evident that the said Jayawanth Shenoy and the alleged power of attorney holder are brothers.

¶292

Therefore, the Reference Court was justified in considering the genesis of the arbitral award and to verify its authenticity.

¶293

¶294

It is pertinent to note that if the said Jayawanth

¶295

Shenoy has not sought enforcement of arbitral award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is also evident that the Reference Court while deciding the dispute under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, had to consider Exs.P13, 14, 15 and 16. In no way it can be said that, it has encroached on the jurisdiction under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Moreover, it is not established that the land owners, Veerabhadraiah, Nanjundaiah and Channamma had knowledge of the award passed by the arbitrator and hence, challenging the arbitral award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not arise. The agreement of sale, the arbitral agreement, the arbitration award and the general power of attorney which was cause for arbitral agreement and award appear to be doubtful . The Reference Court could not have been the Forum to decide about the agreement of sale, if any relief has been sought by the agreement holder. As such, we do not find any reason to hold that the Reference Court has exceeded its jurisdiction.

¶296

¶297

Thus, on a critical examination of the evidence available on record and also the rival contentions which are raised by the parties, we do not find there are any acceptable reasons to hold that the Reference Court had committed an error.

¶298

Further, it is evident that, if at all, the right has accrued in favour of the appellant Jayawanth Shenoy, the Reference Court was not the Forum to agitate the matter. In the case on hand, the conduct of the appellant herein shows that the power of attorney, arbitration agreement and the arbitral award were created for obvious reasons. Moreover, it is evident that the agreement has been entered into between the parties subsequent to the issuance of preliminary notification. This also creates a doubt about the genuineness of the agreement.

¶299

The third aspect is that the agreement overlooks the fact that Channamma has no existing rights in Sy.No.32 at the time of agreement of sale. The Record of Rights at Ex. P shows that she has relinquished her right in the partition and Basaiah was allotted the share and

¶300

¶301

later his son has alienated the same in favour of Veerabhadriaah and Nanjundaiah. Therefore, when these aspects have been established, the Reference Court is fully justified in answering the reference in favour of the legal heirs of Veerabhadraiah and Nanjundaiah. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere in the findings given by the Reference Court. The appeals are bereft of merits. Hence, we pass the following:

¶302

ORDER

¶303

The appeals are dismissed.

¶304

Sd/JUDGE

¶305

Sd/JUDGE

¶306

tsn*

Mr. H. Jayawantha Shenoy v. Mrs Channamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr. H. Jayawantha Shenoy v. Mrs Channamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt Sunitha P

Smt Anjali @ Geethamma Vs Thalavar Siddappara Devaraj

The Claim Manager Vs Karlina

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Ayisha B B

Padmamma Vs State of Karnataka

The Legal Manager Vs Sri Shivakumar S