-1-
IN" THE HIGH COUIQT OF KARNATAKA AT
i;)A'I'ED THIS 'THE 31*DAY 012* o¢;¢m;_--p;;:A%(?2%<)i§:5%
BEFOK§_&' %
'THE HUMBLE MR.JUS1'I'CE
WRIT' PE'"ITI"ION NO;V.;3Q4'.?4 %
Bi£TWEEN : .'
Shri.H.P.Suresh, _T ' _
S/0 Padma11abhaShe.tty_,=.. "
Aged 36 years; V
R/o AI'81agLipp?r"Vi13fi86;'
Chikkamaga':i11r*'T'q, &-.1'3*.i_St,__ V '
«. .. . .PE'1'm0NER
(:52 SE1§'i;Ii{E».:f€.;E;{ }¥J_}'X(}OPAL 85 M.N'AGARAJA,
A % _ %;;{)v0cATEs.)
, - A 1; A~§'§0mnfi§éi0ner,
-. District.
. Caommissioner,
=.chi;kkaanaga1ur Sub-Divisien,
(lhiigkamagalur,
.. Dist. : Chikkaznagalur.
A' -Einnappa, S/0 Eerala" 1'1,
Age: Major, R/0 M.C.Ha}11,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chikkamagalur Dist.
....2..
4. Smtfihikkamma, W / o Eeraiah,
Aged about 55 yearrs,
R/o Nagenahaili, Jagra Post,
Chikkamagalur Taluk 61.. Dist.
(BY s1<;.R.DEvADASs, AGA .[_i'4(I)i3&'_'l"€"."]L'
N.R.NAIIwsv$e.d'.b}*.R. 1 and also the
order dated 14.12.1300 3' "v_i(ie'L..é§i1:1exure:ii3--.passed by R12
and etc. 3 2 -' --
"i'}f1js " hearing, having been
heard: a{i(i--..:1?eseI'§'ed_ 'fgr orders, this day the Court
pronoézgnced ms ' -
E R
.. The péit'iti_o;1e1§'. claims to be the owner in
»AQ0$$eS$§i0z11and bearing No.i384 ofAraiakuppe Village
"o1f"ct1n1i§1;.%:%::xa;g¢§1ur Taluk 65 District measuring 3 acres
16> The said land was originally ganted in
~ faifo-my of iéieraiah by the Grant Certificzate dated
' ;25.'iA3.1954. The third ané iburth respondents are the
$011 and wiiie respectively, of the original ice. The
w--.-
.
-3-
Therefore, the contentions of the learned cou11see¥._:1’c:,i*’~the
petitioner that a ‘transfer’ in terms of thet
Sehecluied Castes and scneduia-:et’;’;v1bcs” ‘qfiezafiitipii -o:”‘
Traiisfer of Certain Lands) Act, tiers
21 W11}, deserves to be _
(1)) Both the ati:1;hoIit:ies.’eeHie to the
conclusion that the a Will and
hence, have ‘the “oraier. The iinding of
the autho::i.tie.sV;»i§,;s Viufistgstamable and deserves
to be assc.
g (:2) The. eelitezétieii of Sriflevadass, iearned AGA
. ” jufeif the and second respondents is that, a
I 7a testamentary disposition in terms of
See<tjea'"3{,tj(e} provided it is in the name of the famiiy
V. metnbers. However, if the W121 is in the name of a person
is not a family member, then the definition of
it 'transfer' wouid ineiude a Will. The contention of the
learned AGA for the firs': and second respondents
($4….
cannot be accepted as a proposition of law or on ifiorits.
Section 3(1}(ej refers to a testamentary
distinction has been made regarding .,
whom a testamentary dispositiozj j;
beneficiary of a Will ttzerafore é3itl1er”‘bje, a L.
mem her or one outside a distifiotion has been
made in the statute’ iearned AGA
for the first and second ffhe submission
therefore of 2 Section
3(1)(e},vis’*uIiéfiS1;éii:zab1o.”-.V’ ”
(<3) N:.'§é§Naik,;_mfié,.1e;a;x~ned counsel for the mm:
respondent-co11¥.o11dSV_tf12ié: since the gantee has sold the
_quc.stiorH1',"'i'1e'Vis no more the owner of the land
not legaiiy entitled to bequeath the
said C€}I1ff:I'i{i0I1 appears to be intended, in
V'–ortieraensure the protection of the Act. 'F116 fact oft3:1e
undisputed. it is also undisputed that the will
V% __h.;as not been questioned even as on . T116
n-q.__
-10….
contention regarding the sale has not been raised before
the Assistant Commissioner. The contention wzae-s’,_raised
for the first time only before the Deputy _
The Deputy Commissioner comzxntterl , error ..
entertaining the said contention ax.
when the Safilfi was neither plea,derl nor’ C;consi(iered.: >
before the Assistant {lomtnissio-r;:ler. .’t:)itj1e:* Way, the
contention of the leer?;’1e<i_ :for the third and
fourtl}. respondents :do"ee:fn.ot consideration
in View of 'thatedmittediy the property has been
willed adniittedly Will has not been questioned.
1fx1_§hezlega.1"'~rerjresentatives of the orignal gantee
the same should have been questioned
__ Faflure to do so, would therefore
dieem:it.le "them lrom raising such a contention.
' '$fiCW of the land being 'willed', the provisions of
arrlatalre Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
"(P2-ehibieen of 'l'ransfer er Certain Lands) Act, 1973 are
Qfiéc.