2002 Supreme(SC) 1204

2002(8) Supreme 561
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
B.L. Sreedhar & Ors. -Appellants
versus
K.M. Munireddy (Dead) and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2971/1995
With
C.A.No. 2972 of 1995
Decided on 5-12-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde, Surya Kant, S.S. Naganand, R.P. Wadhwani, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, P.P Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961-Section 5-Plaintiff and defendant applied for re-grant under the Act-Stand that on regrant benefit enures to the members of the family-Whether if grant is made under the Act to any member of the family, the benefit ensures to the whole family? (Yes)-Case law referred (see para 10).

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 115-Concept of estoppel-High Court holding that rule of estoppel is clearly in applicable (see paras 14 to 38)-Appeals against-Whether High Court is right? (Yes)-Result-Appeals dismissed.

       Held : Though the plaintiff was not a party to several proceedings referred to by the parties conduct of the plaintiff clearly shows in the background of evidence tendered that he was conscious of the proceedings. One instance in this regard would suffice. Defendant no.3 filed an application in Form-7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 claiming occupancy rights in respect of particular items of agricultural land. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 claimed ownership on the land, they were duly notified and alter hearing both sides. Tribunal allowed claim of defendant no.3. It was brought to the notice of the High Court when challenge was made to the order of the Tribunal, that plaintiff was one of the members of the Tribunal, lie had participated in the proceedings in question though he had retired in the middle. The Tribunal cannot be said to have not been influenced to some extent at least by his presence. High Court in writ petition No.4430 of 1978 referred to orders of the Tribunal and came to hold that on the date of hearing plaintiff was withdrawn from the proceedings. No definite material was placed before it to show as to what was done on the date when the petition had been heard and orders were pronounced. To meet the ends of justice, High Court quashed order passed by the Tribunal and directed further inquiry and further directed to render a decision in accordance with law. Undisputedly, the Tribunal re-heard the matter and held against the defendant No. 3. Attempts before the High Court did not bring any result. From the material on record it is clear that there was series of litigations to which reference has been made by the High Court where the contesting parties were defendant no.3 and defendant nos 1 and 2. It would be hard to believe that plaintiff had no knowledge of the proceedings though he was living jointly with defendant no. 3 and his other children. No satisfactory explanation has been given by him in this regard. Some lands were sold by the plaintiff, which were contended to be for the benefit of the family. Same logic would apply to the land sold by the defendant no.3. In November, 1979 Tahsildar had initiated proceedings for resumption of land on the ground of alienation without permission. Notice issued for the purpose was quashed by the High Court in W.P. No.l957S/79 by order dated 10.8.1980. In the plaint though reference was made to the property as jointly family property, the reliefs claimed for, show that plaintiff sought for declaration that be was the absolute owner of the property. It could not be explained by learned counsel for the appellant, as to how in the reliefs sought, that is, absolute ownership, the dispute could be treated to be one on behalf of the joint family. It has also not explained as to why defendant no. 3 had filed the application claiming occupancy rights, and when on the date of suit, defendant nos. 3 and 4 were admittedly major, they were not added as plaintiffs. Strained relationship as pleaded before this Court, nowhere find place in the suit. Interestingly in the written statement of defendant no.3, it was stated that the deeds in question were not sale-deeds but were hypothecation deeds. The suit was not for partition. Though plea relating to manipulation of records, the same has not been rightly accepted by the court below. Though in the revenue records for sonic years entries were in the name of the plaintiff, but varying entries exist. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

       Held (after explaining concept of estoppel) : In view of the factual conclusions arrived at by the High Court, which are perfectly in order, the appeals are bound to fail. The rule of estoppel has clear application, and in view of this finding it is not necessary to go into the question whether Explanation 6 of Section 11 C.P.C. 1Rs. any application or not. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. (Paras 39 and 40)