Smt.Savithramma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025WP/52740/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land Tribunal occupancy rights — Form No.7 / Form No.10 — locus standi of heirs to challenge grant — maintenance deed versus settlement deed — voidable title ratified under Section 43 Transfer of Property Act — tenancy proved by RTC records dated 01.03.1974 and statements of purchaser's sons — vesting under Section 44 — Land Reforms Act — Tumakuru — writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The 1945 document in favour of Nanjamma (Annexure-D) is a maintenance deed, not a settlement deed conveying ownership: the land was delivered to her solely for the purpose of her maintenance, with a right to enjoy it only during her lifetime. ¶¶79

Smt.Savithramma Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶106

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners have locus standi to question the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on respondent Nos.3 and 4. +1 more

¶¶71

Court's answer

¶¶79

Ratio / Principle

At the time of the sale in 1948, Nanjamma's two sons did not possess a valid saleable right over the property; Byrappa, who purchased the land under the registered sale deed dated 01.10.1948, therefore acquired only a voidable title.

¶¶82

Key takeaways

On Nanjamma's death in 1961, her two sons Hemambaraiah and Hemasubbaiah, as her only Class-I heirs, inherited the property; consequently the voidable title acquired by Byrappa through the sale deed stands ratified in accordance with Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.ratio¶¶82
After Nanjamma's death her two sons did not contest the sale deed on the ground that their mother was the absolute owner; this failure to challenge the sale deed suggests tacit acceptance of the transaction and its terms.ratio¶¶83
The second petitioner, the grandson of Hemasubbaiah, has no locus standi to challenge the Land Tribunal's decision granting occupancy rights to respondents Nos.3 and 4 — the Court's response is 'No' — as he was not even born when the property was transferred by his father and uncle.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), 15.01.2025 — Writ Petition No. 52740 of 2014 (LR) under Article 226 challenging the Land Tribunal, Tumakuru Taluk order dated 11.04.2011 in Case No. KLRM 1172 & 1174 of 1976-77 (Annexure-A) granting occupancy rights to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the consequential Form No.10 — DISMISSED. Held: (i) the 1945 deed in favour of Nanjamma (Annexure-D) was a maintenance deed conferring only a right of enjoyment during her lifetime, not absolute ownership; (ii) the registered sale deed dated 01.10.1948 by her two sons to Byrappa conveyed a voidable title, which stood ratified on Nanjamma's death in 1961 under Section 43, Transfer of Property Act, the sons having failed to challenge the sale; (iii) consequently the petitioners — the widow and the grandson of Hemagundappa — had no locus standi to question the Tribunal's order; (iv) the inquiry, conducted after a remand from this Court, rested on the statements of Byrappa's two sons and RTC records dated 01.03.1974 showing respondent No.4 in the cultivators' column, establishing tenancy and vesting of the land in the government under Section 44 of the relevant Act; the Tribunal's order suffered no legal or procedural infirmity and the writ petition, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 52740 OF 2014 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE T.S.HEMAGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶9

SINCE DECEASED, V/O/D 08.06.2022, LR IS ALREADY ON RECORD i.e., PETITIONER NO.2.

¶10

T.H. HEMANTH S/O LATE T.S.HEMAGUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF H.H.RAO STREET, CHICKPET TUMKURU-572 101.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA

¶15

(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR P2; V/O/D 08.06.2022 P1 IS DEAD, LRs OF P1 IS ALREADY ON RECORD I.E. P2)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

LAND TRIBUNAL TUMAKURU TALUK

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶20

TUMAKURU

¶21

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

THAMMAIAH

¶23

S/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶24

3(A) CHIKKATHAYAMMA @ THAYAMMA W/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LRS i.e., R3(B) TO R3(D)

¶25

3(B) DAKSHYANAMMA W/O VIRUPAKSHA D/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶26

3(C) YASHODAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA D/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶27

3(D) YOGESHA S/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶28

ALL ARE R/AT KUNDURU BELAGUMBA POST, TUMAKURU TALUK.

¶29

RANGANNA S/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRs

¶30

4(A) MAHALAKSHMI W/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶31

4(B) R. YOGESHA S/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶34

4(C) R. RANGASWAMY @ KIRAN @ RAVIKIRAN S/O LATE RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶35

ALL ARE R/AT VENKATESHAPURA SIRA GATE POST KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK.

¶36

BYRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.

¶37

5(A) PUTTALINGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRs.

¶38

5A(i) SMT. BYRAMMA W/O LATE PUTTALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶39

5A(ii) HEMANTHKUMAR S/O LATE PUTTALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶40

5A(iii) P. SURESH S/O LATE PUTTALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶41

5(b) SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶42

LINGAPPA S/O BADALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶43

R5 AND R6 ARE RESIDENT OF YELLAPURA

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶45

TUMAKURU TALUK PIN:572 103.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3(B TO D); R3(B TO D) ARE LRs OF DECEASED R3(A); SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A TO C); R5A(i), (ii), (iii), R5B SERVED; V/O/DTD: 07.04.2016 STEPS IN RESPECT OF DECEASED R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶48

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.04.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.KLRM 1172 & 1174 OF 1976-77 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALSO QUASH THE FORM NO.10 ISSUED IN PURSUANCE THEREOF (ANNEXURE-B & C).

¶49

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned

¶53

order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the respondent No.2/Land Tribunal vide Annexure-A thereby conferring occupancy rights on private respondent Nos.3(a) to 4(c) and consequent issuance of Form No.10.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶56

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶57

The subject matter of the petition is an agricultural

¶58

land bearing Sy.No.97/2 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas situated at Antharasanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. The petitioners contend that the petition land was owned by Nanjamma who acquired title under registered settlement deed dated 18.01.1945. Petitioners therefore, assert that Nanjamma was in exclusive possession and enjoyment till her death on 12.01.1961. On the death of Nanjamma, petitioners contend that her two sons succeeded to the estate of Late Nanjamma as class-I heirs. Petitioners herein are the widow and son of Hemagundappa who is the grandson of Nanjamma. Petitioners are seriously contesting and disputing the tenancy rights of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Petitioners assert that all along Nanjamma was in exclusive possession and after her death, the family of Nanjamma continued to personally cultivate the land in question and therefore, the original respondent Nos.3 and 4 could not have maintained Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶61

rights. Petitioners therefore contend that Form No.7 filed against respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 fraudulently does not

¶62

take away the rights of the petitioners and therefore, the Land Tribunal order is not preceded by proper enquiry as the interested parties were never notified and they were never heard. The petitioners claim that the order under challenge is a nullity and therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court.

¶63

On receipt of notice, the private respondent No.4 has filed statement of objections and has effectively countered the petitioners claim over the petition land. Respondent No.4 on the contrary has contended that as per the recitals in the settlement deed, two sons of Nanjamma have sold the petition land in favour of one Byrappa S/o Badalingaiah under registered sale deed dated 01.10.1948. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, therefore, have contended that Byrappa having acquired title has stepped into the shoes of the landlord and he has inducted the father of respondent Nos.3 and 4 as a tenant. At para

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶66

8 of the statement of objections, respondent No.4 has contended that present petitioners are not at all necessary parties and therefore, no claim was filed against the petitioners while tendering Form No.7 by the applicants. Respondent No.4 has contended that petitioners are not the owners of the land in question pursuant sale deed executed by two sons of Nanjamma on 01.10.1948. Respondent No.4 has further contended that petitioners have not challenged the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 which is of the year 1948 and therefore, petitioners are estopped from questioning the Land Tribunal order conferring occupancy rights on respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶67

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶68

The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether petitioners have locus

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶71

to question the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶72

Before this Court adverts to the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners, this

¶73

Court deems it fit to cull out the family tree of Nanjamma, which is as under:

¶74

ºÉÃªÀÄºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄAvÀAiÀÄå (¥ËªÀw)
£ÀAdªÀÄä (¥ËªÀw)
|
| |
ºÉÃªÀiÁA§gÀAiÀÄå GB KPÁA§gÀAiÀÄå ºÉÃªÀÄ¸ÀÄ§âAiÀÄå GB ¸ÀÄ§âAiÀÄå
(¥ËªÀw) (¥ËªÀw)
| ±ÁgÀzÀªÀÄä (¥ËªÀw)
| |
±ÁgÀzÁA¨sÀ (¥ËªÀw) |
| |
n. ºÉZï. ºÉÃªÀÄ®QëäÃ£ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå GB n.J¸ï. ºÉÃªÀÄUÀÄAqÀ¥Àà (¥ËªÀw)
®QëäÃ£ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå (¥ËªÀw) ¸Á«vÀæªÀÄä (65)
PÁAvÀªÀÄä (¥ËªÀw) |
ºÉÃªÀÄAvÀ (21)

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶77

The records indicate that Nanjamma, during her

¶78

lifetime, had a limited right to maintenance which was conferred upon her, and it was during her lifetime that she allowed her two sons, Hemambaraiah and Hemasubbaiah, to sell the petition land to Byrappa through a registered sale deed dated 01.10.1948. It is important to note that Nanjamma passed away in 1961. The purchaser, Byrappa, thereafter inducted respondent Nos.3 and 4 as tenants on the land.

¶79

A maintenance deed executed in 1945 in favour of Nanjamma is available as evidence at Annexure-D. While the petitioners' counsel has attempted to persuade the Court that this is a settlement deed, a careful examination of the document reveals that the land was delivered to Nanjamma solely for the purpose of her maintenance, with the right to enjoy it only during her lifetime. However, during Nanjamma’s lifetime, her two sons sold the property to Byrappa via a registered sale deed on 01.10.1948. Upon a detailed review of Annexure-

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶82

D, this Court concludes that, at the time of the sale in 1948, Nanjamma’s two sons did not possess a valid saleable right over the property. As such, Byrappa, who purchased the land through this sale deed, acquired a voidable title. It is noteworthy that there is no evidence to suggest that Nanjamma contested this sale during her lifetime. Records also confirm that she passed away in 1961. Upon her death, the two sons, Hemambaraiah and Hemasubbaiah, who were Nanjamma’s only Class-I heirs, inherited the property. Therefore, the voidable title acquired by Byrappa through the sale deed stands ratified, in accordance with Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.

¶83

After Nanjamma’s death, her two sons did not contest the sale deed on the grounds that their mother was the absolute owner of the land and that they lacked the authority to transfer the property to Byrappa. This failure to challenge the sale deed suggests a tacit acceptance of the transaction and its terms.

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶86

Considering these crucial facts, the primary issue for this Court to determine is whether the second petitioner, the grandson of Hemasubbaiah, has the locus standi to challenge the Land Tribunal's decision to grant occupancy rights to respondents Nos.3 and 4. The Court’s response is unequivocally 'No'. The second petitioner, being the grandson, was not even born when the property was transferred by his father and uncle. As for the first petitioner, who is the widow of Hemagundappa, she too is bound by the sale deed executed by her father-in-law, Hemasubbaiah, as it pertains to the land in question.

¶87

In light of the sale deed executed by the two

¶88

sons of Nanjamma, who were her only surviving Class-I heirs, the petitioners lack the locus to challenge the order

¶89

of the Land Tribunal that granted occupancy rights to respondents Nos.3 and 4. This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that the petitioners’ claim over the property was extinguished when their ancestors,

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶92

Hemambaraiah and Hemasubbaiah, sold the land and failed to challenge the sale.

¶93

Nevertheless, the petitioners’ counsel has urged this Court to review the matter on the grounds of a grave violation of principles of natural justice, asserting that the Land Tribunal’s order was passed improperly. This Court has, therefore, given careful consideration to the Land Tribunal’s order. The inquiry was conducted following a remand from this Court, during which the two sons of Byrappa provided a statement confirming the tenancy rights of respondents Nos.3 and 4. This oral testimony was further corroborated by the RTC records dated 01.03.1974.

¶94

Upon a thorough review of the RTC records, it is evident that respondent No.4’s name appears in the cultivators’ column, which lends substantial support to the claim of tenancy rights over the petition land. This documentation fortifies the assertion that the land was

¶95

13 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:1587 WP No. 52740 of 2014

¶97

tenanted, which consequently strengthens the

¶98

respondents' claim to occupancy rights.

¶99

The combined effect of the statement made by Byrappa’s sons, along with the RTC records from 01.03.1974, clearly establishes that the land was under tenancy and thus vested with the government under Section 44 of the relevant Act. The fact that the land was being cultivated by tenants further supports the argument that the land’s tenure was subject to amendment Land Reforms Act. Therefore, even from a factual perspective, the petitioners’ rights to the land, if any, were extinguished as of 01.03.1974. This timeline also affirms that no legal recourse is available to the petitioners at this juncture.

¶100

After meticulously reviewing the facts and evidence, this Court finds that the Land Tribunal has conducted a thorough investigation and passed a wellreasoned order conferring occupancy rights to respondents Nos.3 and 4. The order is consistent with the evidence on

¶101