JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
(2.) The present appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056 and 1057 of 2001, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and order dated 22.09.2001 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in RA Nos. 9, 10,11,12 & 13 of 1997.
(3.) The facts which are required to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder:
The plaintiff-deceased respondent no.1 herein (since died during the pendency of these appeals, is being represented by his LRs i.e. respondent Nos. 1a to 1g) had filed a suit O.S. No. 255 of 1984 before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bidar against the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar for declaration that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 183 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas and Sy. No. 184 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas which are arising out of the old Sy. Nos. 249 and 250 situate at Balki and as such sought for a declaration that they are the owners of the said property and the assignments of property, if any, created by the defendants-appellants as ineffective. The deceased respondent no.1 also sought for correction to correct the revenue records in respect of the suit land. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the said suit on the ground that the plaintiff-deceased respondent no.1:
"has filed the present suit against the Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Officer on some misconception of the fact. If wants to obtain a effective decree, he has to implead various persons who are in actual possession of various portion of the suit land and seek the effective relief like declaration of possession etc as the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his possession over the suit property "
The land in old Sy. Nos. 249 and 250 of Kasba Balki previously belonged to the ancestors of respondent no.1 herein, Gurappa (since deceased). The total extent of this land was 41 acres 18 guntas. Out of the above land, 20 acres 29 guntas was owned by the first cousin brother of Gurappa, and he was the owner of the remaining 20 acres and 29 guntas. Parts of it came to be acquired by the state government. Ultimately, the deceased respondent no.1 retained ownership over 5 acres and 22 guntas of land. During the revision of survey and resettlement of the lands in the village, the land in the said Sy. Nos. 249 and 250 was divided into six new Sy. Nos. 179 to 184. It is the case of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.1 that some discrepancies had crept in while preparing the new revenue records and that due to the wrong entries, the names of the owners and their actual possession did not tally with the survey numbers. The suit land measuring 4 acres and 9 guntas which belonged to the deceased respondent no.1 was shown in the name of one Chaturbhuj Heda and allotted Sy. No.184. Another land, which actually belonged to Chaturbhuj Heda was allotted Sy. No. 182 and it was shown in the name of the deceased respondent no.1. Chaturbhuj Heda got his land surveyed and the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) directed him to get his name entered in the RTC of Sy. No. 182, which actually belonged to him. The revenue records of the suit schedule property of the deceased respondent no.1, however, remained uncorrected.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.