- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA WRIT PETITION NO.25270/2010(GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI JOGAPPA S/O.MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS L.RS. (a) RATHNAMMA, W/O.LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, (b) BHOOLAKSHMI, D/O.LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, (c) NAGESH, S/O.LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, (d) VENKATASWAMY, S/O.LATE JOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, (e) IYAPPA, S/O.LATE JOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (f) SHAMANNA, S/O.LATE JOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, (g) RAMAKKA, D/O.LATE JOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, - 2 - (h) ANASUYAMMA, D/O.LATE JOGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1(a) TO (h) R/AT KARANJEEKATTE, BAJANAMANDIRA ROAD, KOLAR. PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADV.) AND: 1. M.GIDDAPPA, S/O. MASTRY MUNISWAMAPPA, R/O UPPARPET, KOLAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. (A) SRI. VENKATARAJU, S/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (B) SHAMANNA, S/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, (C) SRI. SATHYANARAYANA, S/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, (D) SRI. PRABHAKAR, S/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, (E) VENKTAMMA, D/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, (F) SRI. LAKSHIMIDEVAMMA, D/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, (G) BAGYAMMA, D/O. LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, - 3 - (H) SARSAVATHAMMA, D/O. LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, (I) RAMALAKSHMAMMA, D/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, (J) MALINI, D/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, (K) GEETHAMMA, D/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, (L) GOWRAMMA, D/O.LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT UPPARPET, KOLAR CITY, KOLAR-563 101. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADV. FOR R1[b] R1(a) (c-l) ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER [SECTION] OF THE [ACT] WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2010 ANNEXURE `F' PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE JR. DVN. AT KOLAR ON I.A. NO.18 IN [CASE NUMBER] AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
The respondent has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in [CASE NUMBER].
- 4 -
The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia contending that he is in possession of suit schedule property as a tenant for over 30 years and is in possession as owner thereof from 8.12.1984 under an agreement to sale executed by first plaintiff in her favour for sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- and plaintiff has received advance sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. The defendant has become the owner of suit schedule property from 8.12.1984. That the 1st plaintiff has also agreed that she will execute a regular sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property when there is no obstacle under the [ACT] as there was prohibition under the act for executing a regular sale deed in favour of the defendant and the defendant is and will be ready to perform his part of the contract as agreed by her when the sale agreement dated 8.12.1984 and the defendant learns that there will be Government orders in the near future that the prohibition of Non-alienation of fragmented lands and the defendant will be able to compel the 1st
- 5 -
plaintiff for executing a regular sale deed in pursuance of the agreement of sale by receiving rupees five thousand from the defendant and he is ready and willing to do so and is having the money also ready and if there is a direction by this Hon'ble Court in this regard the defendant is also prepared to make the deposit before this Hon'ble Court.
2. It appears, after the amendment of [ACT] with effect from 12.1.1999, defendant filed Form No.7-A in the year 1999. The defendant sought for stay of proceedings before the trial Court on the premise of pendency of tenancy issue before the land Tribunal and the trial Court accepted the application and the matter was stayed, pending consideration of tenancy issue before the land Tribunal.
3. The Land Tribunal rejected the application filed by defendant. Thereafter, he had filed an [CASE NUMBER] before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. That appeal has been dismissed for non prosecution. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rejected
- 6 -
I.A.No.18 for stay of further proceedings in [CASE NUMBER] till the final decision of [CASE NUMBER].
4. The suit was filed in the year 1990. As on the date of suit, tenancy issue was not pending. The defendant evolved tenancy issue by filing Form No.7-A during the year 1999. The case is set down for arguments. As of now, tenancy issue is not pending. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in dismissing the application.
5. In a decision reported in [PRECEDENT] (in the case of [PRECEDENT]), the Supreme Court has held:-
"30. In [PRECEDENT], this Court held : (SCC p.865, para 7) "7. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under [SECTION] convert itself into a court of appeal when the Legislature has not conferred a right of
- 7 -
appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts."
31. In [PRECEDENT] this Court explained the power of the High Court under [SECTION] thus : (SCC pp. 656-57, para 28) "28. Thus the law is that [SECTION] of the [ACT] gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under [SECTION] are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However the power under [SECTION] is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under [SECTION], must be exercised
- 8 -
sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under [SECTION] of the [ACT] since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under [SECTION] could not be exercised 'as the cloak of an appeal in disguise'."
32. The aforesaid two decisions and few other decisions, namely, [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], came to be considered by this Court in [PRECEDENT] and this Court held : ([PRECEDENT] "38. Though powers of a High Court under [SECTION] and [SECTION] are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law.
- 9 -
The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law."
6. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.
JUDGE nas.