PROPERTY CASES ANALYSIS BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA INTERPRETATION OF STATUTESSubmitted to:Mr. BHARAT KUMAR

Submitted BY:Supriya kumariRoll No. 2012108Semester VIIDAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITYVISAKHAPATNAM

ACKNOWLEDEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank the Vice Chancellor, Mr. R.G.V. Bhagawath Kumar, for giving me this opportunity of doing a project. Secondly, I am grateful to my Interpretation of Statute lecturer, Bharat Kumar Sir, for guiding me during the making of this project on the topic property cases analysis by High Court of karnataka.Last but not the least; I am thankful for my seniors and friends help in the editing and formatting the content.

IntroductionIt is a well-established fact that the legislature is highest law making body and the court is merely an interpreter of the law. But actually the fact is by interpreting the law the court can make comprehensive changes in the actual implementation and overall maneuver of the law. This can be easily be gathered by analyzing the statutory interpretation made by Indian judiciary and its effect on India and its citizens as a whole. The principles of complementarity and dissociation,as they apply to the interpretation of property and civil rights concepts found in federal statutes, particularly theIncome Tax Act,[footnoteRef:1]have already been discussed a few times in this column. Without going into too much detail, we will simply note that complementarity can be defined as the use of rules, principles or concepts from provincial private law for the purpose of applying a federal enactment that refers to those concepts but does not define them. Dissociation, on the other hand, results from Parliament decision to adopt its own private law rules for the purposes of a federal statute or to adopt the rules of a legal system and apply them to the enactment in question, whether clearly or implicitly. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession. The present essay entry focuses upon cardinal rules and general relevance of interpretation of statutes as being applied in Indian context and as been evolved by Indian Judiciary with the passage of time. The enumeration below is being substantiated with the relevant case laws of Indian jurisprudence but before that, it is important to analyze historical aspect of rules of interpretation , [1: R.S.C. 1985, 5th Supp., c. 1, as amended]

Principles of interpretation Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada and, unless otherwise provided by law, if in interpreting an enactment it is necessary to refer to a province rules, principles or concepts forming part of the law of property and civil rights, reference must be made to the rules, principles and concepts in force in the province at the time the enactment is being applied. However, the principles of interpretation set out in section8.1 of theInterpretation Actare subject to one express general exception, which is worded as follows, unless otherwise provided by law. This means that Parliament can always create dissociation by adopting or referring to private law rules that differ from those applicable in the province of application. Interpretation Actwas passed, few tax cases referring to it have come before the courts.[footnoteRef:2] This may be because the parties have made few arguments based on this fairly recent provision. [2: The Interpretation of Bijural or Harmonized Federal Legislation]

ScopeThe first thing to bear in mind when considering is that the concept of property, or possessions, is very broadly interpreted. It covers a range of economic interests. The following have been held to fall within the protection of Article 1, movable or immovable property, tangible or intangible interests, such as shares, patents, an arbitration award, the entitlement to a pension, a landlords entitlement to rent, the economic interests connected with the running of a business, the right to exercise a profession, a legitimate expectation that a certain state of affairs will apply, a legal claim, and the clientele of a cinema.[footnoteRef:3] But the protection does not apply unless and until it is possible to lay a claim to the property concerned. It only exists property and not the right to acquire property in the future which is protected. It follows that an expectation to inherit property in the future, for example, will not be protected under Article 1 of the act. [3: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Interpretation-of-Statute]

Rules Of Interpretation : Historical PerspectiveIndian historical rules ofinterpretation of statute have not got the due recognition in the present study of rules of interpretation. Many few peoples are aware about the existence of such rules even in India. But in actual, there are many modern rules whose foundation has been laid down in ancient rules of interpretation. These ancient Indian rules are popularly known as Miasma Rules of Interpretation. These rules are primarily for Vedanta[footnoteRef:4]and have contributed a lot in formulation and development of Hindu Law. The basic aim of these rules is to give interpretation of the Vedas, the earliest scriptures of Hinduism, and to provide a philosophical justification for the observance of Vedic rituals. [4: represents the philosophical portion of the ancient scriptures of India.]

Related legislationsThere are 18 other statutes that are primarily concerned with Property Law, or significantly matter to Property Law[footnoteRef:5] as:- [5: Sumeet Malik.PROPERTY LAW MANUAL(Hard Bound)(2014 ed.). Eastern Book Company. p.1-968.]

Trusts Act, 1882 Specific Relief Act, 1963 Easements Act, 1882 Registration Act, 1908 Stamp Act, 1899 U.P. Stamp Act, 2008 Limitation Act, 1963 General Clauses Act, 1897 Evidence Act, 1872 Succession Act, 1925 Partition Act, 1893 Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Contract Act, 1872 Sale of Goods Act, 1930 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Role of Interpretation of statue in PropertyThe Interpretation of the Act, Immovable propertydoes not include standing timber, growing crops or grass. Section 3(26), The General Clauses Act, 1897, immovable property shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Also, The Registration Act,1908, 2(6) immovable property includes land, buildings, hereditary allowances, rights to ways, lights, ferries, fisheries or any other benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth, but not standing timber, growing crops nor grass. A transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property, unless a different intention is expressed or implied. According to Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, in case a person either fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorized to transfer certain immovable property and does some acts to transfer such property forconsideration, then such a transfer will continue to operate in future. It will operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property .This will be at the option of the transferee and can be done during the time during which the contract of transfer exists. As per this rule, the rights of bona fide transferee, who has no notice of the earlier transfer or of the option, are protected. This rule embodies a rule ofestoppeli.e. a person who makes a representation cannot later on go against it. Every person, who iscompetent to contract, is competent to transfer property, which can be transferred in whole or in part. He should be entitled to the transferable property, or authorized to dispose of transferable property which is not his own. The right may be either absolute or conditional, and the property may be movable or immovable, present or future. Such a transfer can be made orally, unless a transfer in writing is specifically required under any law.[footnoteRef:6] [6: www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/harmonization/case1-juri.html]

According to Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, property of any kind may be transferred. The person insisting non-transferability must prove the existence of some law or custom which restricts the right of transfer. Unless there is some legal restriction preventing the transfer, the owner of the property may transfer it. [footnoteRef:7]However, in some cases there may be transfer of property by unauthorized person who subsequently acquires interest in such property. In case the property is transferred subject to the condition which absolutely restrains the transferee from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition is void. The only exception is in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him. Generally, only the person having interest in the property is authorised to transfer his interest in the property and can pass on the proper title to any other person . The rights of the transferees will not be adversely affected, provided: they acted in good faith; the property was acquired for consideration; and the transferees had acted without notice of the defect in title of the transferor. [7: web.law.duke.edu/cspd/pdf/IPCasebook2014]

CASESBangalore Development Authority, and others v Venkata Ratnam Law: - :Res Judicata, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Land Acquisition Act, 1898.Issues :- - Whether want of jurisdiction in civil court, to test validity of compulsory acquisition proceedings, is present to mind of trial court or appellate courts in earlier proceedings and trial court in present suit, under Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.facts :- - Before petitioner's constitution its predecessor in interest was City Improvement Trust Board was engaged in planned development of City , Notification was issued and land was found in name of son of one person deceased as Khatedar , Widow of deceased had entered appearance and was said to have petitioned seeking notified land be reconveyed in her favour - Award was passed which was kept in revenue deposit for benefit of khatedars and physical possession was taken over by CITB , Widow of deceased and defendant , had filed civil suit which was decreed .Held: - The trial court has erred in placing reliance on the findings arrived at earlier and in not addressing suit by the BDA in its proper perspective. Therefore, judgment and decree of trial court is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. Appeals disposed of.Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004Law :- Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 and section 26of the Wakf Act, 1954Issues: - the suit property under theAncient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904(Ancient Monuments Act) and a notification has been published in that regard and the suit property had been entered in the Register of Ancient Protected Monuments incharge of the Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the Government of India enacted the Ancient Monuments And Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the suit property came to be under the management of the Department of Archeological Survey, Government of India and the suit property as having been declared as 'Wakf Property' in terms of section 26of the Wakf Act, 1954 and was also stated to have been published in the Gazette.Facts :- Three suits were filed by the first respondent in each of these cases seeking for a declaration that notifications issued by the Karnataka Board of Wakf, i.e., the appellant before us, showing some of the defendants to be illegal and void or in the alternative, to declare the first respondent as owner of the suit properties on the ground that they have perfected their title by adverse possession and consequential relief for permanent injunction.Held: - possession of the suit property to the exclusion of the Appellant with the animus to possess it is not specifically pleaded and proved. So are the aspects of earlier title of Appellant or the point of time of disposition. Consequently, the alternative plea of adverse possession by Respondent is unsustainable. High Court ought not to have found the case in their favour on this ground. So, these appeals stand dismissed.Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhoopalam Commercial ComplexLaw : - Section 260Aof the Income-tax Act, 1961, Income from house property underSection 22, Income from business underSection 28of the Act.Issues: - The substantial question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order is--whether the income derived by the assessee from letting out of the house property should be assessed under the head Income from house property underSection 22or "Income from business" underSection 28of the Act. Facts :- The assessee is a private limited company. One of the directors of the company, Sri B.R. Kapanipathy, had taken certain extent of lands situate at Bangalore on a long-term lease of 36 years under a registered lease-deed. He executed a registered deed of transfer in favour of the assesse company transferring his leasehold rights. Subsequently, the assesse company built a commercial complex on the said land and allotted the same to various parties and earned income. Assesse filed its return of income, showing loss of Rs. 1,28,652. The assesse filed the return for the subsequent assessment year 1986-87, again showing a loss of Rs. 75,882. The Assessing Officer completed the assessments computing the loss at Rs. 1, 25,600 and Rs. 74,857.Held: - set aside the order of the Tribunal, The appeals are allowed.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs. State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 1983[footnoteRef:8] [8: AIR 744, 1984 SCR (2) 248]

Law :- Transfer ofPropertyAct,1882,Issues :- Sales Tax Law-Karnataka Sales Tax Act Eligibility to tax-Contracts for servicing reassembling I.A.F Planes which includes supply of materials by the contractor if the owner did not supply them, and only if the owners die, Financial Advisor authorizes them Whether the contracts in question were sales contract or were part of one contract of executing the works contracts not attracting Sales Tax.Facts :- The appellant is a manufacturer of spare parts and accessories of various aircrafts and has also established facilities for assembling, servicing, repairing, overhauling of aircrafts, their instruments and accessories. The job done by the appellants were servicing, assembling, repairing and overhauling Airforce planes entrusted to them. These works were done on the basis of contracts or job orders issued from time to time. While on contract directly concerning the repairing servicing and overhauling of a specified aircraft, instrument or accessory in which the spare parts had been used in the execution of service contracts was on record, there was an agreement dated 23rd June 1951 described as contract forthe flight servicing and maintenance of the H.Q. Training Command I.A.F Communication Flight, wherein the President of India has been described as the owner and the appellant as the contractor. The agreement provided that the works would be carried out by the contractor and payment made by the owner at cost plus 10% profit basis or at the contractor's standard fixedrates, where applicable. Under clause 3, the owner will provide the contractor with all the necessary spares and materials (other than expendable materials such as paints, dopes, cleaning rages etc.) and where however there was delay in the supply of the essential items, the contractor will provide those whenever possible by purchase or manufacture within expenditure authorised by the owner's Deputy Financial Adviser at the contractor's request from time to time.Held :- It is w that in the former, there is in the person performing work or rendering service no property in the things produced as a whole notwithstanding that a part or even the whole of materials used by him had been his property. The necessary adjustments in the assessments should be made. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, the parties will bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.M. V. Narayan S/o Late M. V. S. Chari v S. Suguna D/o SiddarajuLaw :- Issues: - Plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession on ground that schedulepropertywas ancestralpropertyof her paternal grandmother and therefore she has 1/5th undivided share in it. Defendant filed application under O.7 r.11(d) of CPC challenging maintainability of suit on ground that suit much prior to the cut-off date found in s.6(1) of the Act. Whether suit filed by plaintiff is maintainable.Facts :- Plaintiff is the grand daughter of Siddamma, and daughter of defendant-Siddaraju. Defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and the younger sister of the plaintiff. The defendant was subsequently impleaded on anapplication being filed under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, herself and defendants constitute a joint family and the suit schedule property measuring 2 acres of Thammenahalli village of Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is the ancestral property of the joint family. Defendants filed written statement taking a specific stand that the property in question was alienated through a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant. The suit itself is not maintainable when the schedule property has been alienated through a registered document the cut-off date found in Section 6(1) of theHindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.Held: -The appeal is dismissed. Notwithstanding dismissal, the trial court is expected to frame appropriate issuekeeping in mind the averments found in the pleadings of the parties, at the earliest. Parties to bear their own costs.Gowri W/o Divira Bolu and others v Prabhakara Adiga S/o Late Anantha Adiga and others[footnoteRef:9] [9: indiankanoon.org/doc/96401150]

Law: - Code of Civil Procedure,1908, sec- 11, Transfer ofPropertyAct,1882, sec- .52.Issues: - Whether judgment and decree against deceased husband of petitioner no.1 was binding on present petitioners. This is the object ofSection 146, which is consistent with the principle of public policy embodied in Section 11 CPC andSection 52of the TP Act.

Facts: - The petitioners are the widow and children of one Divira Bolu. The respondent is said to have filed a civil suit against Divira Bolu, seeking a permanent injunction against him from interfering with property. Deceased husband of petitioner no.1 was keen to purchase suit propertyand approached plaintiff-respondent with offer to purchase same, as it was negated - he had developed animosity and started to interfere with suitpropertyhence, respondent filed suit which was decreed - After death of deceased respondent filed execution petition against petitioners, in their capacity as legal representatives of deceased - Executing Court answered question of bendiness of decree on legal representatives of defendant in affirmative and directed petitioners to file undertaking that they would not interfere with plaintiff'sproperty This is the object ofSection 146, which is consistent with the principle of public policy embodied in Section 11 CPC andSection 52of the TP Act.Held: - In instant case, though defendant had claimed that he, along with his brothers, was in possession of suitproperty, it is neither case of respondent, or petitioners themselves, that they have any claim over suitpropertyor for that matter, in any adjacentproperty. Hence, in letter and spirit, judgment and decree against defendant would have no relevance to petitioners and same cannot be enforced against petitioners. Hence, proceedings initiated against petitioners, before Court below, are quashed. Petitions allowed.

K. R. Ashwathanarayana S/o Late K. Ramaswamaiah and others v Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and another[footnoteRef:10] [10: westlawindia.com/maf/wlin/ext/app/tocectory?stnew=true&sttype=stdtemplate&sp=inapu-1]

Law :- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, - Land Acquisition Act, 1894Issues :- These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement. Whether r.3 of the Rules was liable to be struck down.Facts :- The petitioners are agitating that they are entitled to get ten more incentive sites in addition to 10 incentive sites already allotted to them. They have also, inter alia, raised the challenge to Rule 3 of the Bangalore Development Authority Rules,. The sum and substance of the petitioners' grievance is that they have lost about 18 acres of lands besides the adjoining phot karab lands of 2.39 acres on account of their compulsory acquisition for the purpose and benefit of the Bangalore Development Authority. Sri V.Ranga Ramu, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are all the coparceners, anubhavadars and khathadars of the lands in question. He submits that under Rule 3 of the 1989 Rules, the fixing of the outer number of incentive sites at 10 is without any basis. If 10 acres of land are compulsorily acquired, the land-owners would be entitled to 10 incentive sites; similarly if 20 acres of land are compulsorily acquired, then there is no reason why 20 incentive sites should not be allotted to the land-losers. The fixation of the outer limit of 10 sites is arbitrary. He submits that underSection 6of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 all the petitioners are entitled to get the incentive sites in proportion to the acquisition of the extent of their land.[footnoteRef:11] [11: westlawindia.com/maf/wlin/ext/app/tocectory?stnew=true&sttype=stdtemplate&sp=inapu-1]

Held: - It was held that unless rule violated provisions of Constitution or it was without competence or it ran contrary to Statute under which it was made, it could not be invalidated - It was not shown that rule violated any provision of Constitution or of the 1989 Act or that it was without competence. The petitioners cases alsohave to be considered in accordance therewith. It is trite that the similarly placed persons cannot be treated dissimilarly. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.okayya Poojary and another v State of Karnataka and others[footnoteRef:12] [12: ibid]

Law :- :Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964Issues:- Whether, interpretation placed by Division Benches was proper and legal. Holding of Division Benches of HC that Government records should reflect factum of vesting of land in State, to attract provisions of s. 77-A of Act as amended by Act 1998.Facts: - appellant's conviction for offences under Section 302 andSection 201of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') has been upheld. The High Court has also upheld the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Udupi. The result is that the appellant is made to suffer incarceration for life for allegedly murdering his own foster mother.Held:- The court held that while amending the Act and introducing s. 77-A, the legislature was very clear in its mind that by the said amendment, they were not intending to have one more forum for registration of occupancy rights u/s. 45 of the Act. These two provisions were intended to cover two independent fields. The enquiry that was contemplated u/s. 45 is totally different from the enquiry u/s. 77-A, as is clear from the fact that corresponding to s. 77 Anr. 26(c) was enacted and the claim u/s. 77-A had to be adjudicated in terms of the procedure prescribed u/s. 26(c). Reference was answered. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation then the court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature.Sarvamma and another v U. R. Virupakshaiah alias Virupakshappa[footnoteRef:13] [13: supra]

Law :- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 41, r. 27Issues:- Appellant contended that they and respondents were never joint family, Whether appellate court was justified in rejecting application u/O. 41 r.27 of CPC.Facts :- There was a Partition in a Joint Family, Respondent-plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession against appellants-defendants and trial court decreed suit in favor of respondent . Aggrieved appellants filed appeal before appellate court along with application u/O. 41 r. 27 of CPC, for receiving documents and for amendment of written statement for setting up plea of prior partition, appellate court rejected application.Held :- the court held that Insofar as admission been made by plaintiff in course of his cross-examination of their having been a partition between his grandfather and his grandfather's brother 80 years ago, was a vague statement elicited in cross-examination and was to be ignored as it does not relate to any transaction to which he was a party . so the Appeal was dismissed.

ConclusionThe art of interpretation is a remarkable tool to paint citizens life with numerous beneficial colors of joy, peace and happiness. Indian judiciary has wonderfully endorsed Indian Statutes with a manner which is fair, reasonable and in conformity with the purpose for which the law is framed. Here, it is not to suggest that judicial interpretation has never been erroneous or never resulted into absurdity but is to simply indicate that to make sense out of miserably worded statute, where the purpose of the statute was apparent, judicial violence with the language has paid rich dividends for the country. In light of which, I can simply hope that statutory endorsement by judiciary will continue because a statute can never be exhaustive and legislative incapacity to speculate all the possible situations that may arise in a future and in myriad circumstances will always leave a wide scope for interpretation. This gap will ensure that the interpretation by judiciary in the future will yield fruit bearing results for all.

Bibliography