PROPERTY CASES ANALYSIS BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
Submitted to:

Mr. BHARAT KUMAR

Submitted BY:

Supriya kumari
Roll No. 2012108
Semester VII
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM

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.

Introduction
It 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 the Income Tax Act,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 ,
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
1 R.S.C. 1985, 5th Supp., c. 1, as amended

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 section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act are
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 Act was passed, few tax cases referring to it have come before the courts. 2 This
may be because the parties have made few arguments based on this fairly recent provision.
Scope
The 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. 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.
Rules Of Interpretation : Historical Perspective
Indian historical rules of interpretation 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 Vedanta4 and have
2 The Interpretation of Bijural or Harmonized Federal Legislation
3 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Interpretation-of-Statute
4 represents the philosophical portion of the ancient scriptures of India.

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.

Related legislations
There are 18 other statutes that are primarily concerned with Property Law, or significantly
matter to Property Law5 as:

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, 1881

Role of Interpretation of statue in Property

The Interpretation of the Act, Immovable property does 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)

5 Sumeet Malik. PROPERTY LAW MANUAL (Hard Bound) (2014 ed.). Eastern Book Company.
p. 1-968.

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
for consideration, 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 of estoppel i.e. a person who makes a
representation cannot later on go against it. Every person, who is competent 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.6
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. 7However, 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
6 www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/harmonization/case1-juri.html
7 web.law.duke.edu/cspd/pdf/IPCasebook2014

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.

CASES
Bangalore 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, 2004
Law :- Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 and section 26 of the Wakf Act, 1954

Issues: - the suit property under the Ancient 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 26 of 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 Complex
Law : - Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Income from house property
under Section 22 , Income from business under Section 28 of 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 under Section 22 or "Income from business"
under Section 28 of 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, 19838

Law :- Transfer of Property Act,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 23 rd 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 fixed

rates, 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
8 AIR 744, 1984 SCR (2) 248

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 Siddaraju
Law :Issues: - Plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession on ground that

schedule property was ancestral property of 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 an application 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 the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Held: -The appeal is dismissed. Notwithstanding dismissal, the trial court is expected to
frame appropriate issue keeping 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
others9
Law: - Code of Civil Procedure,1908, sec- 11, Transfer of Property Act,1882, sec- .52.
Issues: - Whether judgment and decree against deceased husband of petitioner no.1 was
binding on present petitioners. This is the object of Section 146, which is consistent with the
principle of public policy embodied in Section 11 CPC and Section 52 of the TP Act.
9 indiankanoon.org/doc/96401150

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
property and approached plaintiff-respondent with offer to purchase same, as it was negated he had developed animosity and started to interfere with suit property hence, 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's property
This is the object of Section 146, which is consistent with the principle of public policy

embodied in Section 11 CPC and Section 52 of the TP Act.

Held: - In instant case, though defendant had claimed that he, along with his brothers, was in
possession of suit property, it is neither case of respondent, or petitioners themselves, that
they have any claim over suit property or for that matter, in any adjacent property. 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 another10
Law :- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, - Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Issues :- 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
10 westlawindia.com/maf/wlin/ext/app/tocectory?stnew=true&sttype=stdtemplate&sp=inapu-1

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 under Section 6 of 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.11
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 also have 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 others12
Law :- : Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
Issues:- 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 and Section 201 of 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.

11 westlawindia.com/maf/wlin/ext/app/tocectory?stnew=true&sttype=stdtemplate&sp=inapu-1
12 ibid

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 Virupakshappa13
Law :- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 41, r. 27
Issues:- 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 crossexamination 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.

13 supra

Conclusion
The 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