Arijit Pasayat, J. -
(1.)These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, which was rendered in a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC). Same was directed against the judgment and decree passed by the first Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in Original Suit No. 582 of 1982. The suit one for declaration and injunction was filed by respondent No. 1 B. K. Lakshmaiah, against his sons B. L. Ganesh-defendant No. 3, B. L. Sudhakar-defendant No. 4, B. L. Babu-defendant No. 5 and B. L. Sreedhar-defendant No. 6, and defendant Nos. 1 and 2, 7 to 9 who were alienees of certain properties which were alienated by defendant No. 3. Lands were alienated first to defendants 7 to 9 who subsequently alienated them to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The factual background needs to be noted in detail.
(2.)Plaintiff had two wives, 9 sons, 4 daughters and in addition, two pre-deceased daughter and son. The defendants 3 to 6 were sons through the first wife, while three sons and one daughter through the second wife were not parties to the suit. According to the plaintiff, Bovi Googa/Bingooba son of Munia was the original Barawardar. Thoti of Bommanahalli Village had service inam lands assigned to his hereditary office as an emolument in consideration of the services. Kaverappa, father of plaintiff-Lakshmaiah succeeded to hereditary office and also to the service inam lands and other properties belonging to his father by Govt. grant. He died in 1959, and plaintiff succeeded to the Village Office as well as to the properties. The suit Sy. No. 3 measured 5 acres 4 guntas out of which suit schedule properties 1 acre 28 guntas, according to plaintiff was under the possession and enjoyment of the Hindu undivided family.
(3.)The Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (in short the Act) came into force w.e.f. 1-2-1963. It repealed the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908 which provided for hereditary office. Under Section 4 of the Act the lands were resumed though there was a provision for re-grant to a holder of the village office under Section 5. Section 5(3) of the Act prohibits transfer, alienation of the land, except by partition, for a period of 15 years, without previous consent of the Deputy Commissioner. Plaintiff claimed that he and his sons were living together in joint mess and shelter and he was Karta of Hindu undivided family. Plaintiff and defendant No. 3 applied for re-grant under the Act. By order dated 4-5-1972, the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore passed an order re-granting the land. Plaintiff gave his consent for re-grant of entire land in favour of the defendant No. 3. On 5-5-1972 and 3-6-1972 defendant No. 3 applied for permission to sell 1 acre 28 guntas of land. The permission was granted accordingly. On 23-10-1972 defendant No. 3 sold lands in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 9 who on the same date sold the land to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The sale-deed (exhibits D11 and D12) were executed by defendant No. 3 and defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Mother of minor defendant Nos. 4 to 6 acted as legal guardian. The suit was filed on 24-2-1982, as according to the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 starting dispossessing to the plaintiff. The relief sought for were as follows :
i) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property;
ii) and consequently for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit-schedule property either by themselves or through their agents or assignees or coolies;
(iii) for costs of these proceedings, and the Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law.