Supreme Court of India
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANANversusTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE & ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 326
- Decided
- 10 April 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- MADAN B LOKUR
Holding
Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be used to dispute the title of private individuals who have possessed land for more than a century, and the State’s unproven fraud allegation renders the proceedings under that provision jurisdiction‑less and barred by limitation.
Summary
The dispute concerned the title to the Beaulieu estate in Bengaluru, originally conveyed in 1900 to the Dewan of Mysore on behalf of the First Princess of Mysore. Over the ensuing century, portions of the estate were acquired by the State and later transferred to private owners, including the appellant. In 2004 the Karnataka Government, alleging fraud in the 1900 conveyance, issued a notice under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to evict the occupants. The appellant challenged the notice, arguing that the State lacked jurisdiction and that the claim was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that Section 67 cannot be used to dispute the title of individuals who have possessed land for more than 100 years, that fraud must be pleaded and proved and cannot be presumed, and that the State’s proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction and time‑barred. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the High Court’s order setting aside the Single Judge’s judgment was reversed.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 can be invoked to challenge the title of a private individual who has held land for over 100 years.
- Whether the State's allegation of fraud in the 1900 conveyance deed is sufficient to sustain proceedings under Section 67.
- Whether the proceedings under Section 67 are barred by the limitation period.
- Whether the State has jurisdiction to issue a notice of eviction under Section 67 in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 227
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964s. 49, s. 67
Subjects
land title disputefraud allegationlimitation periodKarnataka Land Revenue ActSection 67government acquisitionjurisdictionpresumption of fraud
Judgment
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 206
A SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN
v.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4937 of2017)
B APRIL 10,2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.)
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964:
s.67 - Applicability of- Dispute as to title of Beaulieu estate
c situated in Bengaluru '--Portions of the estate sold to individuals as
well as acquired by State Government from time to. time - Case of
respondent-authority that the said estate belonged to State
GovernmenLand it was fraudulently shown in conveyai1ce deed of
year 1900 to have been purchased for the First princess of Mysore
out of her personal funds - Summary proceedings u/s. 67 - Held:
D
Record produced from the Archives of the State depicted that the
• Dewan of Mysore had put up a memo before the Maharaja of Mysore
in which it was stated that, as desired by His Highness, the Dewan
of Mysore had arranged to purchase the Beaulieu estate for the
First Princess - There were details of the account of the First
E Princess, cash balance and pension due to her and how the money
for purchase of this house was to be appropriated out of the funds
of the First Princess - Therefore, ·authority erred in coming to
conclusion that the deed of conveyance was fraudulently claimed
in favour of the First Princess and that all subsequent transactions
relating to the estate property were fraudulent - The proceedings ul
F
s.67 were without jurisdiction - s.67 cannot be used to dispute the
title of persons who have been holding property for more than 100
years - The proceedings are also beyond the period of limitation -
Limitation.
s.67 - A dispute of title of property between the State and
G individuals cannot be decided in terms of s. 67.
. Presumption:
PresuinjJtion of fraud - Fraud must be pleaded and proved;
it cannot be presumed - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
H
206
-'
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 207
, COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE ·
Allowing the appeals, the' Court A
HELD: 1. No doubt, the original conveyance deed shows
thatit had been executed to the Dewan of Mysore by Lancelot
Ricketts, however, at the bottom of the conveyance deed, there
is a note that the same has been registered and
h
a fee of Rs.128.50
had been paid. There is a memo on record which has been B
produced from the Archives of the State and this shows that the
Dewan of Mysore put up a memo before the Maharaja of Mysore.
In this memo, it is stated that, as desired. by His Highness, ,the
Dewan of Mysore had arranged to· purchase Mr. Lancelot
Ricketts's house for the }'irst Princess. This memo was put up. C
on 03.08.1990 and approved on 04.08.1990. On the, side of this
memo, there is a note that His Highness be(ore 'conveying
approval may explain the matter to and secure t,he clearance of
the First Princess. This was done jlnd approval given on
04.08.1990, where-after the conveyance deed was executed on
25.08.1900. [Para 8] [212-C-D, F] , D
2. The total area was 24 acres and 12 gunthas. In the year
1918-19, correspondence was exchanged between the
Government of Mysore and the Controller of Palace of Mysore
with regard to some encroachment upon the land of the First
Princess. Finally, the Government agreed to pay compensation E
of Rs.2,300/- for the same to the First Princess. Again in 1948 it
appears that the State wanted to acquire some portion of the
estate. On 11.12.1948, a letter was written by the Huzur Secretary
to the Government of Mysore that since the land was part of
''Beaulieu" estate whkh belonged to the First Princess, all
correspondence for acquisition of the same be addressed to her. F
On 06.08.1949, 12680 square yards, out of 'Beaulieu' estate were
acquired for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- and the compensation was
paid to the First Princess. [Para 9] [212-G-H; 213-A]
3. The First Princess married one Sri Kantharaje Urs in
the year 1918 and they had a daughter Smt. Leelavathi Devi. G
Smt. Leelavathi Devi became the owner of "Beaulieu" estate
after the death of her parents and, after her death, her husband
.K. Basavaraj Urs succeeded to the property. On 02.08.1956,
the Government of Mysore acquired another piece of land and,
H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A again; the compensation was paid to the daughter of the First
Princess. Another portion of "Beaulieu" estate was acquired in
the year 1959 and compensation was paid to K. Basavaraj Urs.
[Paras 10 and 11) [213-B-C]
4. A bare reading of section 67 of the KLR Act shows that
B public roads, streets, lanes etc., and all lands which are not the
properties of others, belong to the Government. Where the
property is recorded in the ownership of any other person or
persons who are legally capable of holding property, the
provisions of Section 67 will not apply. Section 67 cannot be
· used to dispute the title of persons who have been holding
C property for more than 100 years. It is not believable that, in the
year 1900, the Maharaja of Mysore and his Dewan colluded to
commit fraud on the State of Mysore with a view to favour the
First Princess. As is clear from the facts, various acquisitions
took place out of "Beaulieu" estate. More than 20 acres of the
D total 24 acres and 12 gunthas were acquired by the Govemment
of Mysore both prior to and after the independence of the country.
Nobo'dy raised any objection. If the land belonged to the State,
why would the State acquire its own property? this question has
not been answered. Various transactions took place after the
year 1~71 and portions of this estate were sold/transferred from
E one person to another. Entries in the Revenue Record were
made, but the State never raised any objection. The sale deeds
were registered without demur. It was only in the year 2004 that
some official of the Karnataka Public Service Commission filed a
complaint in this regard. [Paras 15, 16) [215-G; 216-B-D]
F 5. After 104 years of the execution of the original
conveyance deed, and after acquiring various lands out of this
very estafii, the State cannot be permitted to urge that the-original
conveyance deed is fraudulent or that the subsequent transfers
arc all collusive and, as such, void. A dispute of title of property
G between the State and individuals cannot be decided in terms of
Section 67. Merely because the Secretary of the Karnataka Public
Service Commission had, in bis complaint, opined that the deed
of conveyance executed more than 100 years back was
fraudulently claimed to be in favour of the First Princess, was not
sufficient ground to proceed under Section 67. It could not be
H
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 209
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE
held that all subsequent transactions relating to the estate A
property were fraudulent. Fraud must be pleaded and proved; it
cannot be presumed. Therefore, the proceedings under Section
67 were without jurisdiction. The proceedings are beyond the
period of limitation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the instant case, the allegation of fraud cannot be believed,
B
especially in view of the contemporaneous evidence and the
subsequent acquisitions out of this very estate, both by the
Maharaja of Mysore before independence and by the State of
Mysore after independence. [Paras 17, 18, 19] [216-E-H; 217-
A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4937 c
of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2014 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in W. A. No. 643 of 2009
WITH
D
C. A. No. 4939 of2017.
K. J\. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Ms. Shradhha
Deshmukh, Senthil Jagadeesan, Zeeshan Diwan, Govind Manoharan,
Ms. Shruti Iyer, Ms. Savita Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
J. N. Raghupathy, V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Advs. E
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Leave granted.'
I. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these . F
civil appeals, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. The relevant facts are that, by a Conveyance Deed dated
25.08.1900, one Lancelot Ricketts sold his property known as "Beaulieu"
measuring 24 acres and 12 gunthas situated in Bengaluru. This
conveyance deed was executed in favour of the Dewan of Mysore. It is
G
not disputed that thereafter, on various occasions, portions of this Estate
were acquired by the erstwhile State of Mysore, both before and after
independence.
3. This "Beaulieu" Estate is apparently located in the heart of
Bengaluru city. It appears thatthe Office of the Karnataka Public Service
H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2017] 4 S.C.R.
A Commission had a boundary adjoini'ng "Beaulieu" estate in which a hotel
under the name of Atria was being run. There were a number of other
commercial buildings and residences, including the residence of appellant
M. Shankaranarayanan in this estate.
4. A complaint was sent by the Secretary of the Karnataka Public
B Service Commission on 14.05.2004 that, in the year 1900~ the property
had been transferred by the original owner Lancelot Ricketts in favour
of the Dewan of Mysore. However, it was fraudulently shown that the
property had actually been purchased forthe First Princess of Mysore
out of her personal funds. It was alleged that the original. conveyance ·
deed dated 25 .08.1900 had been executed only in favour of the Dewan
c of Mysore. Furthermore, no stamp duty was paid on the sale deed and,
therefore, it was complained that the sale was either totally illegal or that
the sale was in favour of the State of Mysore and "Beaulieu" estate
was notthe personal property of the First Princess. In the same complaint,
it was also mentioned that, in the year 1956, the Government of Mysore
D acquired 6 acres of "Beaulieu" estate and, in those proceedings,
Rajkumari Leelavathi Devi was notified as the owner of the estate. In
the year 1959, some ot~er portions of the.estate were·acquired and this
time K. Basavaraj Urs was shown as the owner. It was complained 'thai
the acquisition of20 ·acres and 9 gurithas ofland, out of the 24 acres and
12 gunthas, was a fraudulent acquisition and would not confer any rights
E 1;1pon the owners.
5. As a result of this complaint, summary proceedings under
Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the
KLR Act') were initiated against the occupants of the land. Aggrieved
by this action, one of the parties - Smt. Asha Chakko, who is appellant in
F Civil Appeal No. 4939 of 2017 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 12595 of
2014] filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, whereas
the.other partjes filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned
Single Judge quashed the order passed by the State ofKarn11taka on the
ground that the State had no jurisdiction to pass the same. · ·
G 6. The•State of Karnataka preferred an appeal against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge before the Division· Bench of the
High Court. The appellant M. Sankaranarayanan applied for transfer of
his appeal, which had been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, to the
High Court. This prayer was rejected by the Karnataka High Court.
Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court in SLP (C) No. 25034
H
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v~ THE DEPUTY 211
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
of 2011 for transfer of his case. This petition was allowed and the A
operative portion of the order reads as follows:
"3. The appellant applied to the High Court for transfer of
Appeal No. 690 of2005, titled as M. Sankaranarayanan vs. Deputy
Commissioner and others: filed by him before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal (KAT) to the High Court for hearing the same B
along with Writ Appeal No. 643 of2009. The High Court dismissed
the application. While dismissing the application; the High Court
observed that the appeal pending before, the KAT has to be heard
and decided by the Tribunal itself ~nd it cannot be clubbed with
~he writ appeal.
4. Having regard to the fact that the controversy in Writ c
Appeal No. 643 of2009, which is pending before the High Court,
is broadly identical to the appeal which has been preferred by the
appellant before KAT, we are of the view that the High Court
failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by transferring the
appeal pending before the KAT to itself to avoid multiplicity of D
arguments as well as the conflict of judgments.
5. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the
Appeal No. 690 of2005, titled as "M. Sankaranarayanan vs. Dy.
Commissioner, Bangalore and others'"pe'nding before the KAT
be transferred to the High Court for its hearing and disposal along E
with Writ Appeal No. 643 of2009, titled as "State ofKarnataka
and another vs. Asha Chakko and.others". The Registrar, KAT
shall transfer the record and proceedings of Appeal No. 690 of
2005 to the High Court as expeditiously as may be possible and
not later than four weeks from the date ofreceipt of copy of this
order. No costs." F
The writ appeal filed by the State of'Kamataka in the case of
Smt. Asha Chakko was allowed m~inly on the ground that the writ petition
was not maintainable, since the petitioner had an efficacious alternative
remedy of approaching the 'Tribunal. As far as transferred appeal of
appellant M. Sankaranarayapan is concerned, the High 'Court held that G
since the appeal had been filed before the Tribunal, it would be proper to
remit it back to the Tribunal for .decision. Aggrieved by the judgment of
the learned Division Bench, these two appeals have been filed.
7. We have heard Shri K. K. Venugopal, lea.med Senior Counsel
for the appellants and Shri J. N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A State ofKarnataka, arlength. The main contention of Shri Venugopal is
that this is a case where the action of the State Government is hopelessly ,
tin:ie-barred. The acquisition took place in 1900 and the State Government
co,uld 'not have issued notices after more than 100 years claiming that
the property belonged to the State of Karnataka. It is further submitted
that the very basis of the complaint is false because a careful consideration !
B
of the sale deed of 1900 clearly shows that this was a sale deed which is
executed in favour of the First Princess. The second contention is that
the State had no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Section 67 of
the KLRAct.
8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the original
c conveyance deed itself. No doubt, the conveyance deed shows that it
had been executed to the Dewan of Mysore by Lancelot Ricketts,
however, at the bottom of the conveyance deed, there is a note that the
same has been registered and a fee ofRs.128.50 had been paid. There
is a memo on record which has been produced from the Archives of the
D Sta.te and this shows that the Dewan of Mysore put up a memo before
the Maharaj a of Mysore. In this memo, it is stated that, as desired by
His Highness, the Dewan of Mysore had arranged to purchase Mr.
Lancelot Ricketts's house forthe First Princess Jayalakshammanni Avaru.
There are details of the account of the First Princess, cash balance and
, E pension due to her and how the money for purchase of this house was to
be appropriated out of the funds of the First Princess. This memo was
put up on 03.08.1990 and approved on 04.08.1990. It would be apposite
to mention that, on the side of this memo, there is a note that His Highness
before conveying approval may explain the matter to and secure the
clearance of the First Princess. This was done and approval given on
F 04.08.1990, where-after the conveyance deed was executed on
25.08.1900.
9. The matter does not end here. As mentioned hereinabove, the
total area was 24 acres and 12 gunthas. In the year 191 8-19,
correspondence was exchanged between the Government of Mysore
G and the Controller of Palace of Mysore with regard to some encroachment
upon the land of the First Princess. Finally, the Government agreed to
pay compensation ofRs.2,300/- for the same to the First Princess.Again
in 1948 it appears that the State wanted to acquire some portion of the
estate. On 11.12.1948, a letter was written by the Huzur Secretary to
the Government of Mysore that since the land was part of"Beaulieu"
H
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 213
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
estate which belonged to the First Princess, all correspondence for A
acquisition of the same be addressed to her. On 06.08.1949, 12680 square
yards, out of'Beaulieu' estate were acquired for a sum ofRs.1,95,000/-
and the compensation was paid to the First Princess.
I 0. It would be pertinentto mention that the First Princessmarried
one Sri Kantharaje Urs in the year 1918 and they had a daughter Smt. B
Leelavathi Devi. Smt. Leelavathi Devi became the owner of"Beaulieu"
estate af(er the death of her parents and, after her death, her husband
K. Basavaraj Urs succeeded to the property.
11. On 02.08.1956, the Government of Mysore acquired another
piece of land and, again, the compensation was paid to Rajk'umari c
Leelavathi Devi, the daughter of the First Princess. Another portion of
"Beaulieu" estate was acquired in the year 1959 and compensation was
paid to K. Basavaraj Urs.
12. As Rajkumari Leelavathi Devi and K. Basavaraj Urs had no
children of their own, they had adopted one K.B. Ramachandraraj Urs, D
~ho became the owner of the property after the death of his parents.
He executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant M. Sankaranarayanan
on 12.12.1973. The entry in the Revenue Record was also made in
1973.
13. As far as the case of Smt. Asha Chakko is concerned, K.B. E
Ramachandraraj Urs sold a portion of the property to Smt. M. Meenakshi
Amma vi de sale deed dated 15. 04.1971. M. Meenakshi Amma, thereafter,
executed a will in favour of Dr. Ammu Nair, who was recorded as owner
of that portion of the property. Dr. Ammu Nair willed the property in
favour of Asha Chakko, Nikhilanand Nair and Nityanand N. Nair.
F
14. After the complaint dated 14.05.2004, the Government of
Karnataka issued a notice under Section 67(2) of the KLR Act. Asha
Chakko, Nikhilanand Nair and Nityanand N. Nair filed a writ petition
before the High Court challenging the notice and the learned Single Judge
of the High Court vide order dated 05.02.2009 passed in W.P. No. 16974
of2005 allowed the writ petition in the following terms: G
"24. Having regard to the admitted circumstances in the
present case, where the properties originally sold in the year 1900
by Shri. Lancelot Ricketts has been divided and sub divided and
sold to several parties over the years by various individual and a
H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A p011ion of which has been acquired by the petitioners,. under
registered documents, apart from compulsory· acquisition
proceedings in respect of other portions of the property whereby
the government itself has consistently acknowledged the ownership
of individual, they cannot be ousted by recourse to section 67.
This would be so even on the principal, that fraud would vitiate
B
all.
25. Reliance sought to be placed on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this court in respect of land granted by the
Government for temporary cultivation and subsequent alienation
by the grantees in favour of the appellants, in that case, had only
c resulted in enquiries having been conducted and entries made in
the revenue records in favour of the appellants having been
rounded off and the name of the Government having been
substituted. The dispute as regards title, was not adjudicated and
any observations as regards title were held to be inconsequential.
D· 'The said judgment would not be relevant to the facts of the present
case.
26. Further, Section 67(2) does not provide for an order of
eviction being passed. In the light of section 67(3) providing for
time, to a claimant in respect of any Government property, of one
E year, the impugned order directing that the respondents be evicted
and that they hand over the property in their possession to the
Government within 21 days of service of the o~der is also without
jurisdiction."
It was held that the authority could not have come to the conclusion
F that the deed of conveyance executed on 25.08.1900 was fraudulently
claimed by Lancelot Ricketts in favour of the First Princess. It was also
held that no presumption could be raised that the erstwhile royal family
had soughtto play frauq and, therefore, the learned Single Judge quashed
the entire proceedings. As we have already mentioned above, the State
of Karnataka filed an appeal and that appeal has been allowed only on
G the ground that the proper remedy for the writ petitioner(s) was to
approach the Appellate Tribunal.
15. Section 67 of the KLR Act reads as follows:
"q7. Public roads, etc., and all lands which are not the property
of others belo1,1g to the Government.- ·
H
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 215
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
(1) All public roads, streets, Janes and paths, bridges, ditches, A
dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea
and of harbours and creeks below ~igh water mark and of
rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks and all canals and
water-courses and all standing and flowing waters, and all
lands wherever situated which are not the. property of
B
individuals or of aggregate of persons legally capable of
holding property, and except in so far as any rights of such
persons may be established, in or over the same, and except
as may be otherwise provided in any law for the time being in
force, are and are hereby declared to be with all rights in or
over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of the c
State Government.
Explanation.- In this section, "high water mark" means the
highest point reached by ordinary spring tides at any season
ofthe year.
(2) Where any property or any right in or over any property is D
claimed by or on behalf of the State Government or by any
person as against the State Government, it shall be lawful for
the Deputy Commissioner or a Survey Officer not lower in
rank than a Deputy Commissioner, after formal inquiry to
pass an order deciding the claim. E
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order made un~er sub-section.
(2) or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit
contesting the order within a period of one year from the
date of such order and the final decision in the civil.suit shall
be binding on the parties." F
A bare reading of the section shows that public roads, streets,
lanes etc., and all lands which are not the properties of.others, belong to.
the Government. Where the property is recorded in the ownership of
any other person or persons who are legally capable of holding property,
the provisions of Section 67 will not apply. Section 67 cannot be used to G
dispute the title of persons who have been holding property for more
than 100 years. Prior to the conveyance deed being executed on
25.08.1900, the Dewan of Mysore had put up a note to His Highness the
Maharaja of Mysore that the estate property is being bought for the
First Princess and the payment was to be made out of her personal
H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A funds. He had 'also requested the Maharaj a to apprise the First Princess
about the facts and then obtain her approval. It is not believable that, in
the year 1900, the Maharaja of Mysore and his Dewan colluded to commit
fraud on the State of Mysore with a view to favour the First Princess.
16. As is clear from the facts narrated above, various acquisitions
B took place out of"Beaulieu" estate. More than 20 acres of the total 24
acres and 12 gunthas were acquired by the Govermnent of Mysore both
prior to and after the independence of the country. Nobody raised any
objection. If the land belonged to the State, why would the State acquire
its own property? This question has not been answered. Various
transactions have taken place after the year 1971 and po11ions of this
c estate have been sold/transferred from one person to another. Entries in
the Revenue Record were made, but the State never raised any objection.
The sale deeds were registered without demur. It was only in the year
2004 that some official of the Karnataka Public Service Commission
filed a complaint in this regard. In the meantime, hotels, commercial
D buildings and residences had come up on various portions of the estate.
17. After 104 years of the execution of the original conveyance
deed, and after acquiring various lands out of this very estate, we cannot
pennit the State to.urge that the original conveyance deed is fraudulent
ortlrnt the subsequent transfers are all collusive and, as such, void. There
E are many bona fide purchasers and, even otherwise, we are not inclined
to hold that the original transaction was invalid.
18. Fm1hermore, a bare perusal of Section 67 clearly indicates
that it only applies to public roads, streets, lanes etc. or to such lands
which are not the property of individuals, or an aggregate of persons
F legally capable of holding property. A dispute of title of prope11y between
the State and individuals cannot be decided in tenns of Section 67. Merely
because the Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission
had, in his complaint, opined thatthe deed of conveyance executed more
than I00 years back was fraudulently claimed to be in favour of the First
G Princess, was not sufficient ground to proceed under Section 67. It could
not be held that all subsequent transactions relating to the estate property
were fraudulent.. Fraud must be pleaded and proved; it cannot be
presumed. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge
was justified in holdingthatthe proceedings under Section 67 were without
H
SRI M. SANKARANARAYANAN v. THE DEPUTY 217
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.)
jurisdiction. We are also of the view thatthe proceedings are beyond the A
period of limitation.
19. The Division Bench of the High Court held that, in terms of
Section 67, the aggrieved parties can file either a civil suit or an appeal
against the order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section
49 of the KLR Act. It did not decide the claim on merits. In the peculiar B
facts and circumstances of the present case, where the dispute regarding
title has been raised after more than I 00 years and when there is
evidence to show that the land was bought for the benefit ofFirst Princess,
the allegation of fraud cannot be believed, especially in view of the
contemporaneous evidence and the subsequent acquisitions out of this
very estate, both by the Maharaja of Mysore before independence and c
by the State of Mysore after independence. The notice being without
jurisdiction could be quashed in proceedings under Article 227 of the
Constitution oflndia.
20. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view
that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the D
judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is held that the "Beaulieu" estate
was purchased by the Dewan of Mysore on behalf of the First Princess
and the consideration was paid from the personal funds of First Princess.
Therefore, the State of Karnataka has no right over the property.
Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Division E
Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge
is restored and the appeal filed by the appellant M. Sankaranarayanan
which was transferred to the High Court is decided in terms of the
judgments passed by the learned Single Judge and this Court.
F
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land title dispute"Sign in to search