A declaration made before the Land Reforms authorities is not binding on the heirs of the declarant if it is a self-serving statement intended to save land from the rigors of the Land Reform Act.

K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful 1st defendant in O. S. No. 102 of l981 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Kurnool is the appellant A decree for partition and separate possession has been passed against him

( 2 ) IT is no longer in dispute before me that late Thippaiah, the husband of the 4th respondent, was the real elder brother of the appellant, whereas, the remaining respondents are the daughters of late Thippaiah. The appellant and late Thippaiah were sons of one veerappa who died long back leaving behind him his aforesaid two sons and certain agricultural lands to be inherited by them.

( 3 ) THE respondents 1 to 3 brought suit o. S. No. 102of 1983 for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property alleging that the plaint schedule property is the property of the joint Hindu family consisting of themselves their father late Thippaiah, mother the 4th respondent and the appellant and his family members. Both the brothers had equal share in the plaint schedule property. After the death of late Thippaiah, about three years back from the date of the institution of the suit, the respondents inherited their half share in the plaint schedule property alongwith the appellant who has half share in the same. It is further alleged that the appellant brought some nominal documents for the purpose of defeating the land Reform laws and under the influence of theappellant, the 4th respondent is residing with him. The respondents No. 1 to 3 demanded their share in the plaint schedule property but the appellant on one pretext or the other avoided the same and in spite of written notice did not give their share to them and, on the other hand, replied falsely that partition had taken place between him and late Thippaiah. He had made late Thippaiah to make a false statement before the Land Reforms authorities under his instructions to gain some benefit under the land Reforms Act. But, actually no partition has ever taken place between them. The respondents are entitled to l/3rd share each in the plaint schedule property.

( 4 ) THE appellant, through his written statement, denied that he had ever practiced undue influence on his brother late Thippaiah to make false declaration before the Land reforms authorities. He has also denied that the 4th respondent is residing with him under his influence or colluding with him to defraud them. He has alleged that there was a partition in the year 1964 in which late Thippaiah and he himself had divided the joint family property and since then each of them enjoyed separately the properties that had fallen to their share. Subsequently, both of them had furnished separate declarations under the Land Reforms acts and in pursuance there of the Land Reforms tribunal passed separate orders and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Since the suit is not maintainable in law and, therefore, it should be dismissed. The 4th respondent remained absent inspiteof the service of writ of summons and was proceeded ex parte.

( 5 ) THE learned lower Court, on assessment of the evidence on record, reached the conclusion that no partition has taken place between late thippaiah and the appellant in the year 1964 or otherwise and the plaint schedule property is the property of the joint Hindu family consisting of the appellant and the respondents. Therefore, late Thippaiah has got one half share in the plaint schedule property and the first three respondents are entitled to 3/8th share in it and, thus, they are entitled for partition and separate possession.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant-1 st defendant has preferred this appeal.

( 7 ) SRI M. Krishnamohan Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal strenuously urged before me, relying on venkataswamy v. Venkatasubbayya (1) AIR 1932 Madras 311 and In re Tarun Kumar ghose (2) AIR 1935 Calcutta 509, that late thippaiah had made a stateme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document