Ratio Decidendi: Where land is re-granted under Section 5 of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 to any member of a Hindu undivided family, the benefit of such re-grant enures to the entire family.[judgement_subject][1000074340009] A plaintiff who consents to re-grant of family land in favor of a family member (defendant no.3), has knowledge of and participates (directly or indirectly) in related litigations involving that member's claims and alienations, fails to satisfactorily explain awareness despite joint family living, sells other family lands himself applying family benefit logic, delays challenge to alienation for nearly 10 years, claims absolute personal ownership in reliefs (inconsistent with joint family plea), and does not join major family members as co-plaintiffs, is estopped by conduct under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 from denying the validity of the alienation or questioning the purchasers' rights.[judgement_subject] (!) [1000074340001][1000074340002][1000074340003] (!) (!) [1000074340006][1000074340010][1000074340011][1000074340012][1000074340013][1000074340038][1000074340039] (!)

B. L. Sreedhar vs K. M. Munireddy - 2002 Supreme(SC) 1204

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(SC) 1204

B. L. Sreedhar – Appellant
Versus
K. M. Munireddy – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi:

Where land is re-granted under Section 5 of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 to any member of a Hindu undivided family, the benefit of such re-grant enures to the entire family.[judgement_subject][1000074340009]
A plaintiff who consents to re-grant of family land in favor of a family member (defendant no.3), has knowledge of and participates (directly or indirectly) in related litigations involving that member's claims and alienations, fails to satisfactorily explain awareness despite joint family living, sells other family lands himself applying family benefit logic, delays challenge to alienation for nearly 10 years, claims absolute personal ownership in reliefs (inconsistent with joint family plea), and does not join major family members as co-plaintiffs, is estopped by conduct under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 from denying the validity of the alienation or questioning the purchasers' rights.[judgement_subject] (!) [1000074340001][1000074340002][1000074340003] (!) (!) [1000074340006][1000074340010][1000074340011][1000074340012][1000074340013][1000074340038][1000074340039] (!)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, which was rendered in a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC ). Same was directed against the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional City Civil Judge. Bangalore City in Original Suit No. 582 of 1982. The suit one for declaration and injunction was filed by respondent No. 1 B.K. Lakshmaiah, against his sons B.L. Ganesh-defendant no.3, B.L. Sudhakar-defendant no.4, B.L. Babu-defendant no.5 and B.L. Sreedhar-defendant no.6, and defendant nos.1 and 2, 7 to 9 who were alienees of certain properties which were aliented by defendant no.3. Lands were alienated first to defendants 7 to 9 who subsequently attenuated them to defendant nos. 1 and 2. The factual background needs to be acted in detail:

2. Plaintiff had two wives, 9 sons, 4 daughters and in addition, two pre-deceased daughter and son. The defendants 3 to 6 were sons through the first wife, while three sons and one daughter through the second wife were not parties to the spit. According to the plaintiff, Bovi Googa/Bingooba son o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1204

B. L. Sreedhar – AppellantVersusK. M. Munireddy – Respondent

B. L. Sreedhar – Appellant
Versus
K. M. Munireddy – Respondent