CASE LAW AND PROVISIONS GOVERNING PROPERTY IN KARNATAKA:-

1. In regard to SC/ST lands granted by government on condition restricting alienation, any

transfers made even after the restricted period is declared as void. Government permission is
necessary for such transfers. This law is laid down by karnataka High court in a case of Narayan
parameshwar naik and others vs Deputy commissioner karwar and others 1999(6) KarLJ 244.

2. Only lands granted with restriction on alienation are covered under PTCL ACT 1978.

3. Land granted to a person not belonging to sc/st at the time of grant and if by subsequent
notification caste is added to sc/st group. Such lands also attract PTCL ACT. T.M. Rangaiah
&another vs The AC Tiptur. 2002(5) KarLJ.188B.

4. Land in respect of which occupancy right is conferred under Land reforms act as a tenant to an
sc/st person. Such conferment of occupancy right is not a granted land. Mohammed Jaffar and
another vs State of Kar &Others 2003(1)KarLJ 337 (FB).

5. Under PTCL ACT exchange or gift in favour of relative is also prohibited. Siddalingaiah vs State
of Kar 1988(3) KarLJ sh.N. 13.

6. Even if such transferee is also a sc/st such transefers also void. Smt Anjanamma vs The DC
Kolar Dist 2000(4) KarLJ sh.N.22A.

7. Period of prohibiton starts from the date of issuance of saguvali chit. Karappa Bovi vs Special
Dc mys 1990 (3 KarLJ 361 (DB).

8. Settlement among familly does not amount to transfer. Kariaiah vs DC mys Dist
2000(1)KarLJ .sh.N.48.

9. Only those transfers of lands which have taken place on or before 1-1-1949 having completed
30 years prior to 1-1-1979 are saved from the proceedings under PTCL ACT. V.Muniswamy vs
Deputy comm kolar 1993(3) KarLJ 346.(DB).

10. Land granted for full market or upset price; condition for non transefering is not attracted in
such cases. Narasimhamurthy vs State of Karnataka and others 2001(2) KarLJ 313A.

11. Deputy Commissioner is authorised to permit grantee under Rule 9(1) of The Karnataka Land
Grant Rules 1969 to sell the land for two reasons (a) For acquiring other land. (b) For improving
remaining land. The 50% of market value of the land as determined by DC shall be paid to
government at the time of sanctioning. Such applications are allowed only after 5 years of the
grant.

12. Under Section 67 of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 all Public Roads, Streets, Lanes,
paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences on or beside the same, the beds of rivers, streams,
nallas, lakes, tanks, canals, water courses and all standing and flowing waters which are not
property of individuals are the property of the state government.

13. In Saudagar asul vs State of Kar, reported in ILR 1973 Kar 56. The title to kharab land is
clarified by Karnataka High Court. “ Kharab land is uncultivable land classified for the purposes of
revenue exemption. It cannot be regarded as adjunct to adjoining cultivable land, which gets
transferred along with cultivable land. Kharab land is also capable of ownership which must be
acquired in the same way as cultivable land.
14. Under Section 68 of Karnataka Land Revenue act 1964. Deputy Commissioner is entitled to
declare any Public street, Path, Lane, as stands extinguished with suitable notification and
prescribed procedure.

15. Under Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms act 1961. Occupancy granted to the tenant by
the final order of the tribunal cannot be transferred by the occupant for 15 years from the date of
final order. The land can be partitioned among the family, can be bequeathed by will, but it cannot
be Sold, Gifted, Exchanged, Mortgaged, Leased or assigned.

16. Right to property under Art 300A of constitution of India: No person can be deprived of his
property save by authority of law. This implies further without paying just compensation for it.
Maneka Gandhi case: AIR 1978 SC 597.

17. Law which authorizes compulsory acquisition should be a law of the legislature or a rule
having the force of law. B.D.Chandra Mohan case: AIR 1982 SC 33.

18. Art 31(1) & (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA imposes limitations on the power of the
state and declares the corresponding guarantee of the individual to his right to property. Swami
Motor Transport co.(p)ltd case: AIR 1963 SC 864.

19. If the purchaser relies upon the assertion of the vendor or on his own knowledge and abstain
from making inquiry into the real nature of the possession, he cannot escape from the
consequences of deemed notice under explanation II to section 3 of T.P. act. Bhagwan B. Kedari
case: AIR 2005 Kant 108.

20. Entries in Revenue Records neither confer any title nor extinguish the title already existing.
Balwant Singh’s case: AIR 1997 SC 2719.

21. Section 41 of T.P.Act says where with the consent, express or implied of persons interested in
immoveable property, as an ostensible owner of such property, transfers the same for
consideration, the transfer shall not be viodable on the ground that the transferor was not
authorised to make it. Provided that the transferee after taking reasonable care to ascertain that
the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith.

22. Transferee is also protected if the ostensible owner has effected transfer with the implied or
express consent of the real owners. Kushmir Singh case: AIR 2004 SC 2438.

23. If the revenue sale to the government is declared as void, such sale does not confer any title
on the government. As a result if it subsequently sells such property for consideration to a third
party, the sale has no effect whatsoever and the vehicle cannot hide behind section 41 of T.P.Act.
Ramrao Jankiram case: AIR 1963 SC 827.

24. A mere agreement for sale does not confer any title. As a result, even if the agreement is
valid, the holder will not acquire any title whatsoever. Sunil Kumar Jain case: AIR 1995 SC 1891.

25. When the property is in custody of a receiver, it means the property is in the custody of the
court. Unless consent or leave of the court is obtained, no party will acquire any title just by
coming in over such property which is in possession of receiver. Sundharam Bansal case: AIR
1984 SC 1471.

26. Title and all other interests in the property vests with the purchaser unless a different
intention express or implied is shown. Once it is disputed, the burden of proof lies on the party so
disputes. Bihnudeo Narain Rai’s case: AIR 1998 SC 3006.

27. If a person who has no title carries out any improvements will not be acquiring any better
position nor by virtue of such improvements he would acquire title to the property in his
possession. Also, the expenditure he has incurred for making such improvements cannot be
claimed back. R.S.Madanappa case: AIR 1965 SC 1812.

28. Title to a good will will not pass to the purchaser unless the whole business relating to that
good will is transferred. Alapati Venkataramaiah’s case: AIR 1966 SC 115.

29. Jama bandi is a land revenue demand. Jama bandi entries alone will not create title in the
person whose name is found in such records. Jatturam case: AIR 1994 SC 1653.

30. If a name is entered in revenue records, a presumption arises in favour of the person and
unless and until the presumption is rebutted, the entries have to be considered as true and
correct. M/S Ashok Leyland Ltd case: 2004 (5) Supreme 115, Syedabad Tea Co. Ltd case: AIR
1983 SC 72, State of Maharastra case: AIR 1985 SC 716.

31. However, the entries in revenue records alone will not convey title or will not have the effect
of extinguishing the already existing title. B. Singh & Anr case: AIR 1997 SC 2719.

32. If there are two sets of revenue records regarding the same property and their entries
conflicting then the latest of the records will prevail. M.Pandey & Ors case: AIR 1981 Cal 74.

33. Mutation entriescan neither create title nor extinguish title and such entries cannot be treated
as evidence of sale. Major P.S. Atwad case: AIR 1995 SC 2125.

34. Entries in revenue records which are unchanged fairly for a long time will not be rebutted by
some stray entries. Sri Bhimeshwara Swamivaru Temple case: AIR 1973 SC 1299.

35. An agreement of sale does not creates any interest in the property, but it creates an
obligation that is inherent to ownership. Soni Lalji case AIR 1967 SC 978. Bai Dosa bai case: AIR
1980 SC 1334.

36. Sale of property transfers ownership. Inderjit Singh case: AIR 1996 SC 247.

37. As a consequence of an agreement to sell, land was transferred under an unregistered sale
deed. The transferor becomes owner even if he is not put into possession. State of A.P case: AIR
1982 SC 913.

38. Unless there is a written agreement for sale is executed, the vendee cannot defend his
possession merely on the basis of oral agreement and certain correspondence with the vendor.
M.C.Bakhru case: AIR 2002 SC 812.

39. A contract for sale or an agreement for sale does not create any title in favour of the
transferee. But the provision section 53A of T.P.Act creates a bar on the transferor to seek
possession from the transferee. Patel Natwarlal Rupji case: AIR 1996 SC 1088.

40. Family settlement does not amounts to transfer of property. Ramcharan Das case AIR 1966
SC 323. However in a case of Kokilambal &othrs case: AIR 2005 SC 2468 it is held that
Settlement is one of the modes of transfer of immoveable and moveable properties. In order to
find correct intent deed has to be read as a whole.

41. Family settlement made orally needs no registration. Kale and othrs case AIR 1976 SC 807.
Once it is put to writing it needs registration. Tek Bahadur Bhujil case AIR 1966 SC 292.

42. If the instrument releases right title or interest in a property without consideration, it is
transfer of property. Kuppuswami Chettiar case: AIR 1967 SC 1395. A transfer of co-parcenary
property without consideration would be void. Rajamma Dhodura case: 1970 (1) MyLJ 489.

43. Guardian cannot transfer the property of a minor during the minority of minor without leave of
the court and but for the benefit of the minor. If father is the guardian, the sale becomes only
voidable when action is brought within three years from the date on which minor attained
majority. Amritham Kudumban case: AIR 1991 SC 1256.

44. Once the partition is given effect to and the property is divided and shared, the plea that
person so took the share is a lunatic will have no effect. A plea of Lunacy is sustainable only if the
District court has adjudged the person in question as lunatic. Karumanda Gounder case: AIR 1996
SC 1002.

45. Non mentioning of survey number will not render the mother document void so also the area
of the subject matter. Mithukhan case: AIR 1986 MP 39.

46. If the language employed has ambiguities to enter into it, then intention of the parties has to
be gathered by overall survey of the contents of the document in question. P.L.Bapuswami case:
AIR 1966 SC 902.

47. If a document is relatively 30 years old and was obtained from proper custody, then its
contents have to be presumed genuine. Smt Anika B. case: AIR 2005 MP 64.

48. Just by name true nature of document cannot be disguised nor be treated otherwise. AIR
1958 SC 532.

49. For clear identification of any immoveable property, the deed should be very clear about the
schedule or boundaries of the property. Ig the boundaries are disputed, their description resolves
the dispute. M. Dhondusa Religious and Charitable Trust case: ILR 2002 Kar 4832.

50. If one interpretation could give effect to all parts of the deed and other renders some clauses
nugatory, then, the interpretation that gives effect to all clauses should be preferred. Radha
Sundar Dutta case: AIR 1959 SC 24. D.D.A. case: AIR 1973 SC 2609.

51. In case of contradictions in statements of document about area and boundaries the
boundaries shall prevail. M/S Roy &co case: AIR 1979 Cal 50.

52. In case of contradictions between the map and mother deed, the mother deed should prevail.
Narain Prasad Singh case: AIR 1983 Pat 244.

53. In case of ambiguity with regard to description of property, description as can be ascertained
from the boundaries will settle the issue. Babji Dehuri case: AIR 1996 Ori 183.

54. In case of contradictions between description and boundaries regarding location of the
property, the boundaries shall prevail. Tranglaobi pisiculture co-op soc ltd case: AIR 1969 Mani
84.
55. Plan appended to a document forms part of that document. If a plan is so appended, extent
cannot be determined solely based on measurements ignoring the map. Sumathy Amma case:
AIR 1987 Ker 84.

56. Ownership of surface of the land confers ownership of every thing beneath the land unless a
reservation was made by transferor while transferring the ownership. Raja Anand Brahma Shah
case: AIR 1967 SC 1081. Sukhdeo Singh case: AIR 1951 SC 288.

57. Unless other wise provided by the recitals, trees standing on the land will also pass along with
the land. DFO sarahan forest division H.P.case: AIR 1968 SC 612.

58. In construing a contract the court must look at the words used in the contract unless they are
such that one may suspect that they do not convey the intention correctly. ONGC ltd case: AIR
2003 SC 2629.

59. Purchasers of lands proposed for acquisition subsequent to the publication of preliminary
notification do not get any right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. ILR 1998 Kar 1441, ILR
1998 (4) Kar 4172.

60. The mere fact that the properties were not separately entered by the coparcener in the book
of account or that he did not maintain a separate account of earnings from these properties would
not deprive the properties of their character of self acquired properties. AIR 1976 SC 1715.

61. Where ancestral property which is sold in execution of decree against the karta is
subsequently acquired by a coparcener with the aid of his own funds, the property would be
treated as the self acquired property of the co-parcener. Revappa case AIR 1960 Mys 97.

62. The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property is on person who on
first instance claims it as so. AIR 1960 SC 335. Only after the possession of adequate nucleus is
shown, the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self acquired, affirmatively to
make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the joint family estate. AIR 1969
SC 1076. One of the tests in determination of the adequacy of the nucleus is the income which
yields. AIR 1984 SC 1171.

63. Where the manager of HUF claims that what is acquired is his separate property he should
prove that he acquired it with his separate funds. AIR 1961 SC 1268, AIR 1969 SC 1076. Where
there is an acquisition by the manager in his own name and there is no independent source of
income, the presumption arises that the new acquisition was joint family property. AIR 1954 SC
379, AIR 1959 SC 906.

64. If the admissions are made by a member, then the onus shifts on him to prove that what he
admitted is not true. AIR 1961 SC 1268.

65. A partition which is shown to be prejudicial to the interest of a minor co-parcener will be set
aside so far as he is concerned. Ratnam chettiar case: AIR 1976 SC 1. The rule of reopening of
partition does not apply to a decree if the minor is properly represented before the court unless
the minor can show fraud or negligence on the part of his next friend or guardian ad litem.
Bishundeo’s case: AIR 1951 SC 280.

66. Under Hindu Succession act remarriage is not one of the disqualifications mentioned, she is
entitled to inherit. A property vested in her by inheritance before remarriage is not divested on
remarriage. Kasturidevi case: AIR 1976 SC 2595.

67. Mothers claim in deceased sons property is recognized by Mysore High court stating even if
she is remarried she does not cease to be his mother. Thayamma case: AIR 1960 Mys 176.
68. The Tahsildar has got power only to issue survivalship certificate and not the legal heirship
certificate. Basavanni Shankar Ammanagi case: 2002 (2) KarLJ 317A.

69. Any order made by authorities in violation of the principles of natural justice is null and void.
K.R.Lakshman case: 1995(5) KarLJ 137A.

70. Change in use of land falling within the area of ODP & CDP should be effected or undertaken
only with the written permission of the planning authority under section 14 of The KT & CP Act
1961. Special DC v/s Narayanappa ILR 1988 Kar 1398.

71. Where there is a documentary evidence, oral evidence is not entitled to any weight. Murarka
Properties (p) ltd AIR 1978 SC 360.

72. The documents of which registration is necessary under the T.P.Act but not under the
registration act fall within the scope of registration act and if not registered are not admissible as
evidence of transaction effecting any immovable property comprised therein and do not affect any
such immoveable property. Raghunath & othrs case: AIR 1969 SC 1316(1319,1320).

73. The principle of Mitakshara Law that sons have independent co-parcenary rights in the
ancestral estate and that father is subject to their control in he alienation of family property has
been almost destroyed by the principle which has been established by the decisions that sons
cannot setup their rights against their fathers alienation for an antecedent debt or against his
creditors remedies for their debts, if not tainted with immorality, though not incurred for the
family necessity or benefit. AIR 1952 SC 170. The concurrence of all the adult members is
conclusive presumption of law. AIR 1951 Mys 38.FB.

74. The settled law through decisions of Privy council and various High courts is that “ A sale or
mortgage of family property by the managing member is valid on the ground of justifying family
necessity where it is: (a) For the payment of decree debts and other debts binding on the family.
(b) To pay off the claims of Govt on account of Land Revenue, cesses, taxes and other dues. (c)
For the payment of rents due to the landlord or the payment of decrees for arrears of rent
obtained by land lord against family. (d) For the maintenance of members of the family. (e) For
the purpose of defraying the expenses of the first marriage of the co-parcener and of daughters
born in the family. (f) For the expenses of the necessary family ceremonies including funeral and
annual shradha. (g) For the expenses of necessary litigation in connection with the recovery or
protection of the joint estate or the establishment of adoption of his minor son. (h) For the
expenses of defending the head of the family or any member against a serious criminal charge. (i)
For the purpose of carrying on an ancestral trade or business. (j) To raise money to avert a sale
or destruction of the whole or any part of the family property. (k) For the expenses of necessary
repairs to the family residential house or family properties and for the protection of fields and
lands belonging to the family from floods etc.,

75. Managers discretion regarding legal necessity or benefit of the estate can be subjected to
judicial review. AIR 1964 SC 1385.

76. It is not open for a coparcener to sue for injunction restraining the manager from alienating
on the ground that it is not for legal necessity or benefit. B.C.Ray, Justice however observed that
injunction may be granted in case of waste or ouster. Sunil kumar case: AIR 1988 SC 576.

77. Gift by a manager even of a small extent of Joint family property to a relative out of love and
affection is void as it is not a gift for pious purposes ( i.e religious and charitable purposes ) within
the meaning of that expression in Hindu Law. Guramma v/s Mallappa AIR 1964 SC 510. see also
AIR 1967 SC 569. A gift to a concubine or stranger is void. AIR 1980 SC 253.
78. MUSLIM LAW: Doctrine of pre-emption was developed as a custom under muslim law from
early days. This is to restrain and prevent a stranger coming in between or among co sharers or
neighbors which could cause inconvenience. An offer has to be made to near relatives and
neighbors first in order to avoid inconvenience. Such principle disscussed and recognised in
following decisions. AIR 1996 SC 2146; AIR 2002 SC 2500; AIR 1958 SC 838; AIR 1991 SC 1055;
AIR 2001 SC 2611. Under Shia law only co sharers are entitled to right of pre-emption.

79. Muslim Law or any other personal Law should not over ride the statute. Thus where T.P.Act
applies, no right of pre-emption would arise unless the title has passed according to the Act. The
demand of exercise of right of pre-emption shold e made after registration of sale deed. AIR 1960
SC 1368; AIR 1961 SC 1747; AIR 1968 SC 450.

80. Right of pre-emption is lost by Estoppel and acquiescence. AIR 1991 SC 1055.

81. In Mahfooz Ali Khan case: AIR 1980 All 5. Muslim law of pre-emption was applied in certain
parts of the country to the owners of the property irrespective of their religious persuasions,
which shows that it was not applied as the personal law of muslims but as customary law of that
local area.

82. In case there exists a will or any other kind of disposition of property made by the deceased
MUSLIM in his lifetime, it may be limited to one third of his estate, and the remaining two thirds
would devolve on the heirs. AIR 2001 SC 3067.

83. When all the heirs continue to hold the inherited property as tenents in common and one of
them wants to recover his share later on, the limitation would not be counted from the death of
the deceased but from the date of ouster or denial of title. S.S.Gulam Ghouse case: AIR 1971 SC
2184.

84. There is no concept of Joint family property, Joint Family Fund or for that matter Joint Family
itself under Muslim Law. Therefore, no presumptions could be made in these regards as compared
to Hindu Law. AIR 1991 SC 720. But the arrangements of family living to-gether and having
common property are either treated as partnership relation or as trust under Trust act.

85. Adoption is not recognised by muslim law. AIR 1986 J&K 14.

86. In Krishnamurthy v/s Abdul khadar case AIR 1956 Mys 14 Where the property is acquired by
the managing member and all the members of the family are in possession of the family property,
it could very well be presumed that the new acquisition is family property.

87. Under Muslim law different shares are allotted to different heirs, woman is also considered as
an heir, father, mother, grand parents, children, wife, husband, sisters, brothers are recognised
as heirs differently among Shias and Sunnis with definite shares.

88. Unless it is proved to the contrary, no acquisition of property by one or many members of the
family could be presumed to be the property of all as the representation is unknown to muslim
law. Mohd. Ibrahim case: AIR 1976 Mad 84.

89. Where the property is sold with condition to repurchase, the seller can assign his right to
repurchase. Andalammal case: AIR 1962 Mad 378.

90. An exchange made for compromise of criminal cases between the parties is violative of section
23 of Indian contract Act. Shrihari Jena case: AIR 2002 Ori 195.

91. The documents of exchange of properties are compulsorily registrable. But some exceptional
cases were decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court. In Bhagwan Kaur case: AIR 1990 P&H 89:
Where by oral agreement possession exchanged and delivered and revenue records are mutated
accordingly. Parties are in possession for long time. It was held that “The exchange cannot be
invalidated because it is not registered.” In Paramjit Singh case: AIR 2005 P&H 4: There was a
oral exchange of land. Possession delivered and revenue entries mutated and after oral
agreement is fully acted upon the parties at later stage executed the document. It was held that “
May be out of abundant caution, the parties had decided to execute the document admitting the
factum of oral agreement and as no new right title was conveyed by the said document, it does
not require compulsory registration.

92. Under section 122 of T.P. Act there is no consideration involved in a gift. The motive, the
essential element of gift like love and affection does not constitute consideration. Sonia Bhatia
case: AIR 1981 SC 1274.

93. Father in law can make gift in favour of his daughter in law out of love. But, that does not
imply that he can make such a gift in respect of ancestral property. Once the gift of self acquired
property is made, it becomes streedhan of daughter in law. Ammathayee @ perumalakkal case:
AIR 1967 SC 569.

94. It is Jurisprudentially settled principle that no person can transfer a better title than what he
has. Harihar Prasad Singh case: AIR 1956 SC 305.

95. A document of mortgage is compulsorily registrable. If not registered, the deed can only be
used to evidence debt. AIR 1964 Pat 241.

96. In a mortgage by conditional sale the debtor and creditor relationship is found where as sale is
the out and out transfer of all the rights of the owner and in a sale with a condition to repurchase,
the additional ingredient is that, the seller reserves a personal right to repurchase the property.
Bhoju Mandal case: AIR 1963 SC 1906. Where there is no debtor and creditor relationship, the
transaction cannot be termed as mortgage by conditional sale. Tamboli Ramanlal Motilal case: AIR
1992 SC 1236.

97. The mortgagor’s right to redeem the mortgage survives until the sale of mortgaged property
by the mortgagee is completed by a registered sale deed. Narandas Karsondas case AIR 1977 SC
774.

98. While interpreting the document the document in question should be read as a whole.
Therefore , if one clause of the document is invalid or otherwise, that one clause itself will not
render the whole document invalid. AIR 1956 SC 46.

99. It is common knowledge that laymen do not know nor care about the niceties of drafting.
They cannot be expected to possess the expertise of a professional. Therefore, techinical rules
that are generally applied to the provisions of law and exceptions should not be applied while
interpreting such documents or deeds. AIR 1951 SC 293.

100. The cardinal rule of construction is that a document must be read as a whole, each clause
being read in relation to the other parts of the document, and an attempt should be made to
arrive at an interpretation which will harmonize and give effect to other clauses thereof. It is not
legitimate to pick out an expression torn from its context and try to interpret the document as a
whole in the light of that expression. Such a forced construction on the document in question
cannot defeat the very object which its executants had in view. Shri Digambar Jain and others
case: AIR 1970 MP 23(26) [FB].

101. Where an absolute title is given in clear and unambiguous terms and the later provisions
trench on the same, the later provisions have to be held to be void. Ramkishorelal case: AIR 1963
SC 890.
102. It is well settled that general words of release do not mean release of rights other than those
put up and have to be limited to the circumstances which were in the contemplation of the parties
when it was executed. Rajagopal Pillai and another case AIR 1975 SC 895.(897).

103. In construing documents usefulness of the precedents is usually of a limited character, after
all the courts have to consider the material and relevant terms of the document with which they
are concerned and it is on a fair and reasonable construction of the terms that the nature and
character of the transaction evidenced by it has to be determined. Trivenibai case: AIR 1959 SC
620(622).

104. Where under an agreement an option to vendor is reserved for repurchasing the property
sold by him, the option is in the nature of a concession or privilege and may be exercised on strict
fulfillment of the conditions it can be exercisable. If the original vendor fails to act punctually
according to the terms of the contract, the right to repurchase will be lost and cannot be
specifically enforced. Refusal to enforce the terms specifically for failure to abide by the conditions
does not amounts to enforcement of a penalty and the court has no power to afford relief against
the forfeiture arising as a result of breach of such condition. K. Simrathmull case: AIR 1963 SC
1182 (1188).

105. The person who acquired the property with notice that another person has entered into a
contract affecting that property does not acquire title to that property but imposes on him the
obligation to hold the property for the benefit of the other person to the extent necessary to give
effect to the contract provided that the contract is one of which specific performance can be
enforced. Khaja Bi and Others case: AIR 1964 Mys 269 (275). (FB).{ see section 40 of T.P.Act
and Section 91 of Indian Trusts Act }

106. The obligations in the deed which is in the nature of trust is an obligation which can be
specifically enforced. Bai Dosabai Mathurdas Govinddas and others case: AIR 1980 SC 1334.

107. Way to transfer to non agriculturist:- Bar under Kar Land Reforms Act sec 80, Kar
Land Revenue act sec 95(2) and Registration Act sec 22A operates only if under deed of
transfer, possession of agriculture land is delivered to purchaser, who is not
agriculturist. Where deed is only agreement to sell agricultural land after getting
necessary permission to divert for non- agricultural use, and agreement does not
involve delivery of possession, agreement cannot be construed as one opposed to public
policy or contrary to law. Township Enterprises case before Karnataka High Court,
Decided on 16-11-2004. Reported in 2005 (1) KarLJ 385.

108. Zoning Use:- It does not lead to conclusion that all sites/ lands in zone declared as
residential should be used only for construction of dwelling houses and that no bit of land or site
therein can be used for providing other amenities. Planning authorities can permit after following
due procedure. Alliance Business Academy Bangalore Case before Karnataka High Court decided
on 07-01-2005, reported in 2005(2) KarLJ 17.

109. Hindu Law:- Husband, wife and children living together constitute joint family. Property
acquired by members of such joint family is presumed to be joint family property or coparcenary
property not withstanding fact that it was acquired without the aid of ancestral nucleus, unless
contrary is proved. Parties by their conduct and treatment of property in their hands, can impress
self acquired property with character of joint family property with character of joint family
property. Krishnamurthy case before KHC reported in 2005(3) KarLJ 420.

110. Under Hindu Law even achild in the womb of mother will acquire a Right to claim partition.
Reported in 2005(3) KarLJ 386.

111. Consequence of possession given in Sale agreements: It has to be executed with stamp
paper equal to that of Conveyance or else it attracts duty penalty of 10 times that of actual stamp
duty. In this case property agreed to be bought at Rs 18 lakhs with delivery of possession on
stamp paper of Rs 200=00. Rs 19 Lakhs duty penalty imposed to enforce the same. Kapoor
Constructions Bangalore case before KHC decide on 03-03-2005. Reported in 2005 (5) KarLJ 602.
NOTE: After the amendment of Registration act in 2001 such agreements coupled with
delivery of possession needs to be compulsorily registered.

112. Entry in Record of Rights:- Once name of grantee is entered in record of rights on the basis
of order of grant, name cannot be deleted from records, unless grant has been revoked in
properly constituted proceedings by authority competent to revoke grant. M.N.Venkateshaiah’s
case before KHC (DB) , decided on 05-10-05 reported in 2005(6) KarLJ 452 (DB).

113. Karnataka preservation of Trees Act 1976:- Cofee growing land converted into non-
agricultural land for purpose of forming residential layout. Application for permission to fell entire
lot of trees standing on. Application rejected. Such permission will be given for bonafide use of the
owner or occupation or for extension of cultivation or change in cultivation under section 8 of the
act, merely because revenue authorities granted permission does not ipsofacto follow permission
to fell trees. S.B.Ganesh’s case decided by KHC, reported in 2006(1) KarLJ 548.

( To be updated by author from time to time)

For detailed reference of above case laws following web addresses will help you:
For supreme court cases upto date:
http://www.commonlii.org/in/cases/INSC/
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp
For Several high court decisions:
http://www.commonlii.org/resources/221.html