P Gopal v. Smt Chandramma L

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2025RSA/196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 196 of 2021 (DEC); Justice V Srishananda; approbate and reprobate; admission on oath before Land Tribunal; Form No.1 occupancy rights; Section 7(4) Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams and Abolition Act, 1955; vesting of Inam land in Government; registered partition deed dated 04.12.1987 (Ex.P1); declaration and injunction suit; Sy.No.169 Srirampura, Mysuru; estoppel by sworn statement; substantial questions of law held not to survive; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Even before the Inam Abolition Act came into force, there was a registered partition among the parties pursuant to which P.Venkataramu was entitled to one acre of land in Sy.No.169 of Srirampura Village, Mysore Taluk. ¶22

P Gopal Vs Smt Chandramma L — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶order

Issue for consideration

Whether, upon commencement of the Inam Abolition Act, 1955, the suit schedule land (earlier Inam land of Chamundeshwari Temple, Mysore) vests in the Government, and with what consequence as to ownership. +5 more

¶17(i)

Court's answer

The rights under Ex.P1 stood extinguished on the passing of the Inam Abolition Act and the entire land vested in the Government; nevertheless, the arrangement entered into by the parties at an undisputed point of time, being a registered document, binds the parties.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

¶22

Key takeaways

Though the defendant applied for re-grant of the entire eight acres after vesting, he deposed on oath before the Land Tribunal that he was entitled to seven acres in Sy.No.170 and one acre in favour of his brother P.Venkataramu in Sy.No.169 (the suit property).ratio¶23
Having made the sworn admission to obtain a beneficial order from the Land Tribunal in respect of land which had vested in the Government, the defendant cannot now turn around and claim ownership of the entire eight acres.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular second appeal by the defendant in OS No.252/2013 against the First Appellate Court's decree in favour of the plaintiff heirs of late P.Venkataramu over one acre in Sy.No.169, Srirampura village, Mysuru. Although the Inam Abolition Act, 1955 vested the land in the Government and the Land Tribunal by order dated 28.01.1988 registered occupancy rights for the entire eight acres in the defendant's name, the defendant had deposed on oath before the Tribunal that the one acre in Sy.No.169 was for his brother P.Venkataramu, and the registered partition deed dated 04.12.1987 (Ex.P1) embodied that arrangement. Holding that a party cannot approbate and reprobate and that the registered arrangement binds the parties even after statutory vesting, the High Court declined to interfere with the First Appellate Court's decree, found that the framed substantial questions of law would not survive, and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2021 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P GOPAL AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH C RESIDING AT NO.370, MAHADEVAPURA, MANANDAVADI ROAD, NACHANAHALLIPALYA POST, MYSURU - 570 008.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. ABDULLA T I, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT CHANDRAMMA L AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O. LATE P. VENKATARAMU,

¶13

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. RESHMA V AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE P. VENKATARAMU,

¶15

SMT. KRUPA V AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE P. VENKATARAMU,

¶16

SMT. SINDU V AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE P. VENKATARAMU,

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT KL NO.903, I CROSS, V.V.NAGAR, KALLAHALLI LAYOUT,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

HC-KAR

MANDYA - 571 401.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.245/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2019 PASSED IN OS.No.252/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MYSURU AND ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Parties are present. Amicable settlement not reported.

¶29

Heard Sri.T.I.Abdulla and Sri.T.P.Vivekananda for the parties.

¶30

Defendant in OS No.252/2013 is the appellant in this appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed in RA No.245/2019 whereby, the judgment and decree passed in OS No.252/2013 is reversed and the suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed as prayed for.

¶31

Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs in respect of immoveable property, measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.169 of Srirampura Village, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, more fully described hereunder and hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property:

¶35

“SCHEDULE

¶36

All the piece and parcel of Agricultural Land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.169 of Srirampura, Mysuru Taluk and District, bounded on the :

¶37

Research Training

¶38

Institute (CSRTI).

¶39

North by : Land belongs to R.Gopal. South by : Land belongs to Chikka Madaiah.”

¶40

The plaintiffs prayed that they should be declared as owners of the suit property and consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The plaintiffs laid their claim by contending that C.Puttaiah had got five sons by name P.Srinivas, P.Gopal, P.Venkataramu, P.Jayaramu and P.Chandrasekhara.

¶45

C.Puttaiah and his sons constituted Hindu Joint family and one of the sons of C.Puttaiah by name P.Venkataramu died leaving behind plaintiffs as his legal heirs to the estate.

¶46

It is further contended that land bearing Sy.No.169 measuring one acre which is the suit property, was also part of the joint family properties. There was a partition among the sons of C.Puttaiah on 04.12.1987, which was registered on 05.12.1987. But, there was a hitch with regard to the nature of the property, inasmuch as the Inam Abolition Act come into force and the defendant filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Mysore in Form No.1 under Section 7(4) of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams and Abolition Act, 1955. In the said application, he included one acre in Sy.No.169 of Srirampura Village and seven acres situated in Srirampura Village in Sy.No.170.

¶47

The Land Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, allowed the application by order

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

dated 28.01.1988 and ordered for registration of the occupancy

¶51

rights in favour of the defendant pertaining to the entire eight acres of the land. During the course of proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the defendant made a statement to the effect that 1 acre of the land in Sy.No.169 has been allotted to the share of his brother P.Venkataramu, but it is stated that in view of the possession being with the defendant, the Land Tribunal registered the occupancy right in the name of defendant.

¶52

It is further contended that after the demise of P.Venkataramu, when the first plaintiff approached the Tahsildar for registration of the katha in her name, there was a resistance, which resulted in filing of the suit for declaration and injunction based on the Partition Deed dated 04.12.1987 registered on 05.12.1987.

¶53

The defendant, pursuant to the suit summons appeared before the Court and filed detailed written statement denying that whatever the rights that were existing earlier to the passing of Inam Abolition Act, vested with the Government. Therefore, the rights that has accrued to P.Venkataramu vested in the Government and it is the defendant, who filed the application in his individual capacity as he was cultivating the

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

land and the Land Tribunal granting the entire eight acres by order dated 28.01.1988, it is the defendant who became the owner of entire eight acres of the property comprised in Sy.No.169 and 170 of Sirampura Village, Mysore Talulk absolutely.

¶58

He also contended that the rights that has accrued under the registered Partition Deed dated 04.12.1987 registered on 05.12.1987 has been lost in view of the passing of the Inam Abolition Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶59

The learned Trial Judge, after recording the evidence of the parties, accepted the contentions on behalf of the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

¶60

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.245/2019.

¶61

The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties, noted the fact that while deposing before the Land Tribunal, the very same defendant had specifically stated that though he has filed application for entire eight acres, out of the eight acres one acre of the land in Sy.No.169 is to be given to P.Venkataramu.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

However, the Land Tribunal Taking note of only the

¶66

possession of the property as on the date of the filing of the application, granted the entire eight acres of the property in the name of the defendant and the First Appellate Court noted that though it is given in the name of the defendant, it is for and on behalf of P.Venkataramu insofar as one acre of the land in Sy.No.169 of the Sirampura Village, Mysore Taluk, and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

¶67

Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law:

¶68

 “The order of the Appellate Court reversing a wellconsidered judgment of the Trial Court suffers from serious legal and material infirmities. The Trial Court after considering the nature of the Plaint Schedule Property elaborately had rightly come to the conclusion that late P.Venkataramu the husband of the first respondent is not the owner of the suit schedule land and once he is not the owner he is not entitled for possession of the same. Hence order of the Appellate Court being tainted with this legal infirmity is liable to be set aside.

¶69

 The Appellate Court had failed to consider the lethargic attitude and conduct of the parties in not approaching the court having slept over the matter for over 25 years, for the relief claimed now.

¶70

 The Appellate Court ought to have seen that late P.Venkataramu was none other than the brother of the Appellant who was well aware that Form No.1 was filed for grant of Occupancy rights of the Plaint Schedule land and other lands much earlier to the Partition executed

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

between the joint family members. This vital aspect has not been considered by both the courts. This is very crucial for the reason that as soon as the Inam Abolition Act came into force, all the Inam lands in the entire state of Karnataka vested with the Government. When the ownership of the land is with the Government, the Government is entitled to grant Occupancy rights to an Occupant who is cultivating the land. In the instant case, the Appellant was in possession and cultivation of the land in question. As such he filed Form No.1 before the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal rightly granted Occupancy rights under the Inam Abolition Act in favor of the Appellant. This vital aspect has not been considered by both the courts.

¶75

 The Appellate court ought to have seen that the Appellant derived title over the Suit Schedule property and other lands by virtue of an order passed by the Land Tribunal granting Occupancy rights in favor of the Appellant /Defendant who has produced the said order as Exhibit-4 in the suit. The Appellant has become the absolute owner after ten years as per the Grant Certificate. Hence the title of the Appellant is by virtue of an order passed by the Land Tribunal and not by a Partition Deed. The Appellate Court failed to consider this crucial aspect of the issue involved and erroneously proceeded to reverse the judgment of the trial court.

¶76

 Both the courts ought to have seen that once the land vests with the Government becomes the property of the Government and any document executed pertaining to the said property is a nullity having no legal sanctity in the eye of law. The vesting also takes place in favor of the Government irrespective of any deed /agreement or any instrument and the vesting also takes place without any encumbrance whatsoever. If that analogy is applied, the property in question cannot be a subject matter of partition between the family members.

¶77

 The courts below ought to have considered the nature and ownership of the land at the time of partition was effected, the partition deed effecting portioned of the vested land in government to that extent is void document hence consider the void document and giving relief is totally erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶78

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

 The appellate court erred in relaying on void document pertaining to the suit schedule property and holding that the possession was joint till it is delivered and condoned and ignored the delay of 25 years in approaching the Court for relief of declaration and possession.

¶82

 The finding/assumption of the appellate Court to the affect that the schedule land is joint family property is erroneous when legal ownership of the land had vested the government on coming into effect the Inam Abolition Act 1955.

¶83

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW:

¶84

i) Whether the Plaint Schedule land which was in the name of Chamundeshwari Temple Mysore as Inamdar and after coming into effect the Inam Abolition Act 1955 the schedule land will vest with government and the government will not become legal owner of such land?

¶85

ii) Whether inclusion of a vested lnam Land with the government in a Partition Deed without there being any grant by the Government is acceptable in law?

¶86

iii) When once the land vests with the Government by operation of law, whether the said land can be a subject matter of any deed between private parties until and unless the Government grants the same as per the provisions of the Act and issues a valid Grant Certificate to that effect ?

¶87

iv) Whether the Appellate Court is right in holding that the suit filed in the year 2013 after a lapse of more than 25 years claiming the Plaint Schedule Property under a void Deed of Partition executed in the year 1987 is well within the period of Limitation?

¶88

v) Whether the Appellate Court is right in holding and declaring that the Plaint Schedule Property belongs to late P.Venkataramu the husband of the first respondent when it is explicitly admitted by the Respondents/Plaintiffs in their Plaint about the nature of the Plaint Schedule Property and their clear pleading that

¶89

10 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

the same was granted to the Appellant under the Inam Abolition Act as an Occupant and Cultivator?

¶93

vi) Whether a suit is maintainable in view of a clear bar under section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act because the question of tenancy is involved and the Land Tribunal has rightly declared that the Appellant is a tenant entitled for grant of Occupancy Right?”

¶94

Learned Counsel for the appellant Sri T.I.Abdulla vehemently reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the entire right, title and interest that existed in the land earlier to passing of the Inam Abolition Act got extinguished and vested with the Government. Therefore, whatever the arrangement that has been made among the parties in Ex.P1 - registered Partition Deed dated 04.12.1987 registered on 05.12.1987 would not ennure to the benefit of the parties and therefore, sought for admitting the appeal.

¶95

He would further contend that the Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court failed to note that the occupancy right in respect of entire eight acres of land comprised in Sy.Nos.169 and 170 to the extent of one acre and seven acres respectively, having been ordered to be registered in the name of the defendant, the plaintiffs lost their right in respect of the one

¶96

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

acre of the property as per Ex.P1. Therefore, decreeing of the suit by reversing the finding recorded by the Trial Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid grounds.

¶99

Per contra, Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court by contending that assuming for a moment that the rights in respect of the land in Sy.No.169 and 170 have been vested with the Government, when the defendant appeared before the Land Tribunal and deposed before the Land Tribunal, on oath specifically, that out of the eight acres, one acre of the land has to be given to P.Venkataramu and he has filed the application for the entire eight acres.

¶100

In the teeth of such an admission on oath, the learned Trial Judge accepting the stand taken by the defendant that it is his absolute property has resulted in miscarriage of justice, which is set right by the First Appellate Court in true terms of Ex.P1 and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶101

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the matter on record meticulously. On such

¶102

12 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

perusal of the matter on record, even before the Inam Abolition Act came into force, there is a registered partition among the parties as per which P.Venkataramu, one of the brothers of C.Puttaiah was entitled for one acre of the land in Sy.No.169 of Srirampura Village, Mysore Taluk.

¶106

However, when the Inam Abolition Act came into force, the entire land vested with the Government. It is the defendant, who applied for re-grant of the entire eight acres of land. But while deposing before the Land Tribunal, the defendant has specifically deposed on oath that out of the eight acres, he is entitled for seven acres in Sy.No.170 and one acre in favour of his brother P.Venkataramu in Sy.No.169 which is the suit property.

¶107

In the teeth of such an admission on oath for obtaining a beneficial order from the Land Tribunal in respect of the land which vested with the Government, the defendant cannot now turn around and then say that the entire eight acres he is the owner of the property.

¶108

A party to a proceedings cannot approbate and reprobate in his stand. Therefore, the contention taken by the defendant that he is the owner of the entire eight acres of the

¶109

13 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC:34944 RSA No. 196 of 2021

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

land by virtue of the order passed by the Land Tribunal has been rightly rejected by the First Appellate Court and also taking note of the contents of Ex.P1.

¶113

No doubt, the rights in Ex.P1 got extinguished by virtue of the passing of the Inam Abolition Act and the entire land vested with the Government.

¶114

However, the arrangement that has been entered into by the parties at an undisputed point of time, would bind the parties as it is a registered document.

¶115

This is evident from the very fact that the defendant deposed before the Land Tribunal for grant of entire 8 acres of land not only on his behalf but also on behalf of P.Venkatramu.

¶116

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, decreeing of the suit by the First Appellate Court reversing the dismissal by the Trial Court is just and proper, which requires no interference in this second appeal.

¶117

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal would not survive for further consideration.

¶118