Sri Ramanna Balyaya v. Sri Govindha Bhat

( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

ST DATED(THIS(THE(31 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(V(SRISHANANDA(

REGULAR(SECOND(APPEAL(No.39(OF(2018((SP)(

BETWEEN:(( ( , SRI,RAMANNA,BALYAYA,

(SINCE,DECEASED,BY,LR'S), AGED,ABOUT,64,YEARS, S/O,NARAYANA,BALLYAYA,

BALANTHIMOGERU,HOUSE, PUNACHA,VILLAGE,-574,243,, BANTWAL,TALUK,

, 1(a), RANJITH,.B,

S/O,LATE,RAMANNA,BALYAYA, AGED,ABOUT,32,YEARS, BALANTHI,MOGERU, MUDAMBAIL, POST,–PUNACHA,–,574,260, Digitally VITLA,TALUK, signedtiby D.K., MALATESH …APPELLANT, K0C [BY,SRI.,CHANDRANATH,ARIGA,K,,ADVOCATE,FOR,A1(A)], Location: AND:(HIGH (COURT0OF

1., SRI,GOVINDHA,BHAT,KARNATAKA AGED,ABOUT,83,YEARS, S/O,RAMA,BHAT, CULTIVATOR, KOOJODI,OF,SAVANOOR,VILLAGE, SAVNOOR,POST,-574,202, PUTTUR,TALUK, DK, ( ( ( 1(a), SMT.,GOWRI, W/O,LATE,GOVINDA,BHAT, AGED,ABOUT,96,YEARS, KOOJODI,OF,SAVANOOR,VILLAGE, POST:,SAVNOOR,–,574,202, PUTTUR,TALUK, ,

2., SRI,K,RAGHAVA, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS, HINDU,BRAHMIN, C/O,K,K,BELIAPPA,NO.4, TH ND19 ,MAIN,,2 ,CROSS,,, MUNESHWARA,BLOCK, OPP:GANESH,TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560,026, ,

3., SRI,VISHNU,SHARMA, AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS, S/O,GOVINDA,BHAT, HINDU,BRAHMIN, R/A,KOOJODI, SAVANOOR,VILLAGE,AND,POST-574,202, PUTTUR,TALUK, DK, ,

4., SRI,SADASHIVA, AGED,ABOUT,42,YEARS, S/O,GOVINDA,BHAT, HINDU,BRAHMIN, R/A,KOOJODI, SAVANOOR,VILLAGE,AND,POST-574,202, PUTTUR,TALUK, DK, ,

5., SMT,JAYALAKSHMI, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS, D/O,GOVINDA,BHAT, W/O,SHRIDHARA,BHAT, HINDU,BUNTS, ( ( ( R/A,MITTUR,HOUSE, IDKIDU,VILLAGE,AND,POST-574,220, BANTWAL,TALUK, D,.,K, , , MISS,SHEELAVATHI,(SINCE,DECEASED), AGED,ABOUT,73,YEARS, D/O,NARAYANA,BALYAYA, R/A,BULERIKATTE, BALANTHMOGERU,HOUSE, PUNCHA,VILLAGE, MUDAMBAILU,POST, BANTWALA,TALUKU, ,

6., MISS,LALITHA, AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS, D/O,NARAYANA,BALYAYA, BULERIKATTE, BALANTHIMOGERU,HOUSE, PUNCHA,VILLAGE, MUDAMBAILU,POST,-574,260, BANTWAL,TALUK, ,

7., SMT,NARAYANI, AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS, W/O,KRISHNA,BALYAYA, AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS,, D/O,NARAYANA,BALYAYA, BULERIKATTE, BALANTHIMOGERU,HOUSE, PUNCHA,VILLAGE, MUDAMBAILU,POST-574,260, BANTWALA,TALUK, D.K., ,

8., VISHWANATH, AGED,ABOUT,38,YEARS, S/O,KUNHANNA,BALYAYA, ( ( ( R/A,MUNDODI, SANTHIGODU,VILLAGE,AND,POST, PUTTUR,TALUK-574,202, ,

9., VITTAL,BALYAYA, AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS, S/O,KUNHANNA,BALYAYA, R/A,MUNDODI, SANTHIGODU,VILLAGE,AND,POST-574,202, PUTTUR,TALUK, DK, ,

10., ANANDA,BALYAYA, AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS, ,

11., DAMODARA,BALYAYA, AGED,ABOUT,42,YEARS, ,

12., BALAKRISHNA,BALYAYA, AGED,BOUT,40,YEARS, ,

13., YATHISH,BALYAYA, AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS, , RESPONDENTS,5,TO,10,ARE, S/O,KUNHANNA,BALYAYA,, AND,LATE,SUMATHI, R/AT,MUNDODI, POST:SANTHIGODU,VILLAGE,-574,202, PUTTUR,TALUK, DK, ,

14., SMT,KUNJAKSHI, AGED,ABOUT,78,YEARS, W/O,KARISHNA,BALYAYA, D/O,NARAYANA,BALYAYA, R/A,BULERIKATTE, BALANTHIMOGERU,HOUSE, PUNCHA,VILLAGE, ( ( ( MUDAMBAILU,POST,-574,260,, BANTWALA,TALUK, DK, ,

15., SMT,LAXMI, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS, D/O,NARAYANA,BALYAYA, W/O,KRISHNA,BALYAYA, R/A,BULERIKATTE, BALANTHIMOGERU,HOUSE, PUNCHA,VILLAGE, MUDAMBAILU,POST-574,260, BANTWALA,TALUK, …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI,G.RAVISHANKAR,SHASTRY,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,TO,R5;, R6,AND,R7,SERVICE,HELD,SUFFICIENT;, R8,TO,R15,NOTICE,DISPENSED,WITH;, R1(A),SERVED), , , THIS,RSA,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,100,OF,C,,AGAINST, THE, JUDGEMENT, AND, DECREE, DTD, 21.09.2017, PASSED, IN, R.A.NO.171/2008, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, ADDITIONAL, SENIOR, CIVIL,JUDGE,AND,JMFC.,PUTTUR,,D.K.,ALLOWING,THE,APPEAL, AND, SETTING, ASIDE, THE, JUDGEMENT, AND, DECREE, DTD,

02.09.2008,PASSED,IN,OS.NO.27/1999,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE, PRINCIPAL,CIVIL,JUDGE,(JR.DN),PUTTUR.,,D.K., , THIS,APPEAL,,COMING,ON,FOR,ADMISSION,,THIS,DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,V,SRISHANANDA, (

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶3Present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs whose suit decreed in O.S.No.27/1999 was dismissed by the judgment of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.171/2008 for the relief of specific enforcement of agreement of sale.

¶4Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4.1 A suit in O.S.No.27/1999 for specific enforcement of an agreement to sell in respect of the following properties hereinafter referred as the 'suit properties' came to be filed by the plaintiffs on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Putturu, Dakshina Kannada.

"Property situated in Savanoor village, Puttur Taluk, within the Puttur Sub Registration Office.

S.No./S.D.No. Kissam Extent Assessment 124/1P1 Denoted as 124/1(E) in the RTC Wet III 0-37 0-98 124/1P3 Denoted as 124/1(F) in the RTC Wet III 1-68 4-44 124/2P1 Denoted as 124/2(D) in the RTC Wet III 0-83 0-50 162/2P1 Denoted as 162/2(C) in the RTC Dry 0-37 0-15 With trees, buildings, kumki rights. Rights of way and water and all other appurtenants thereto."

4.2 The defendants executed an agreement to sell dated

29.12.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs.

4.3 The land was granted to the defendants under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

4.4 There was a non-alienation clause. However, when there was no compliance to the clauses in the agreement to sell, a suit for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell came to be filed in O.S.No.27/1999.

¶5The suit on contest came to be decreed. Operative portion of the Judgment passed in O.S.No.27/1999 reads as under:

"The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants is hereby decreed with cost of the suit. The 1st defendant is hereby directed to execute the sale deed by receiving balance amount of Rs.8,000/- from the 1st plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement of sale in relation to plaint 'A' schedule property entered into between 1st defendant and father of plaintiffs by name Narayana Ballaya dated

29.12.1984 within 3 months from the date of this order, failing which the 1st plaintiff is entitled to get the registered sale deed or conveyance in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property through the process of the Court at the cost of the defendants."

¶6Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed appeal in R.A No.171/2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.

¶7Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records did not dismiss the suit on the question of prohibition under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, but dismissed suit on merits.

¶8Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶9At the outset, this Court posed the question about the enforcement of the agreement to sell to the learned counsel for appellant.

¶10Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel, would fairly submit that the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narayanamma and another vs. Govindappa and others reported in (2019)19 SCC 42 would be applicable to the case on hand and by the time the matter was disposed of before the First Appellate Court, the said decision had not been passed. Therefore, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had recorded divergent opinions on enforcement of contract of agreement to sell.

¶11Per contra, Sri G.Ravishankar Shastri, learned counsel for the respondents would however contend that prohibition under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is absolute and any agreement that has been entered into within the period of non-alienation, would be void ab initio. Therefore, the contract of agreement to sell suit property is incapable of enforcement and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶12Having heard the arguments of the parties, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narayanamma supra, especially paragraph 24, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit agreement is incapable of enforcement.

¶13Insofar as return of advance sale consideration is concerned, parties have already joined issues in another suit in O.S No.89/1999 wherein suitable orders have been passed.

¶14As such, the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33