Back
2004 Supreme(Kar) 372
High Court Of Karnataka
N. Kumar, J.
Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar - Appellants
Vs
Shantabai Ramachandra Kuduchakar - Respondents
R.F.A. 446 of 1993
Decided on: Jun 17, 2004
B.L. Acharya, S.R. Shinde, V.P. Kulkarni, V. Tarakaram,
The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for partition of tenanted agricultural lands, as the Land Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to grant a decree for partition. Additionally, a party who induces a forum not to pronounce on an issue and persuades it to leave it open to be decided by another forum is estopped from contending that the other forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue.
Headnote:
PARTITION SUIT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - TENANTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS - LAND REFORMS ACT - TRIBUNAL'S DECISION - ESTOPPEL - APPLICABILITY - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION TO DECIDE JOINT FAMILY TENANCY - APPLICABILITY OF DOCTRINE OF APPROBATION AND REPROBATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of agricultural lands and house property. Defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of the Land Tribunal's decision granting occupancy rights to one of the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the family of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 continued to be a joint family and that 2/3rd share of the suit properties were held to be joint family properties.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition and that the defendants were estopped from raising the plea of want of jurisdiction by the civil court to decide the suit for partition in view of the specific plea raised in the proceedings under Section 48a of the KLR Act. The court further held that the civil court had the jurisdiction to decide a suit for partition and that the defendants were estopped from raising the plea of want of jurisdiction by the civil court to decide the suit for partition in view of the specific plea raised in the proceedings under Section 48a of the KLR Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition of tenanted agricultural lands in light of the Land Tribunal's decision granting occupancy rights to one of the defendants? 2. Whether the defendants were estopped from raising the plea of want of jurisdiction by the civil court to decide the suit for partition in view of the specific plea raised in the proceedings under Section 48a of the KLR Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for partition of tenanted agricultural lands, as the Land Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to grant a decree for partition. 2. The defendants were estopped from raising the plea of want of jurisdiction by the civil court to decide the suit for partition in view of the specific plea raised in the proceedings under Section 48a of the KLR Act, as they had induced the Land Tribunal not to pronounce on the issue of whether the tenancy was a joint family tenancy or an individual tenancy and had persuaded it to leave it open to be decided by the civil court.
Final Decision: The High Court affirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition and that the defendants were estopped from raising the plea of want of jurisdiction by the civil court to decide the suit for partition in view of the specific plea raised in the proceedings under Section 48a of the KLR Act.
1. The Bench consisting of my esteemed learned brothers Justice Tirath Singh Thakur and justice K. Sreedhar Rao, upon hearing the Regular First Appeal, RFA No. 446/1993, and having differed in their opinion on a point of law, have stated the point of law on which they differ, and in terms of Section 98 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal is placed before me for hearing on the points of law so stated only, by an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
2. Though my learned Brothers in the course of their judgment have set out the facts of the case, in order to appreciate the case in a proper perspective and to give my opinion on the point of law stated, it is necessary to advert to the pleadings of the parties in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks to in the original suit. The plaintiffs contend that the propositus Sri Balaram Kuduchakar died in the year 1930 leaving behind four sons, out of whom two sons expired in their young age and only two sons namely Sri Namani and Sri Ramachandra survived. Sri Namani died in the year 1981 leaving behind two sons and three daughters namely Sri Parasharam, Sri Subash, Sri Yallappa, Smt. Maya, Smt. Indu and Sri Chanda. Sri Yallappa one of the sons of Sri Namani died in the year 1990 leaving behind his wife Smt. Maiutai, defendant No. 3 in the suit and one minor son Sri nemani, defendant No. 4. Shri. Ramachandra died in the year 1987 leaving behind his wife, sons sri Mohan, Sri Madan and Sri Shyam and daughter Smt. Anita who are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit properties consisted of a house property and agricultural lands. After the death of Sri balaram, his two sons namely Sri Namani and Sri Ramachandra lived in the family house at No. 983, Narveker Galli, Gade Marg, Shahapur, Belgaum, together and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. They were also cultivating the agricultural lands held by the joint family. Late Sri Namani being the elder in the family was managing the joint family affairs. Agricultural lands bearing Sy. No. 236 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas, Sy. No. 744 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas and Sy. No. 741 measuring 10 guntas, all situated at Belgaum Taluk, Belgaum district, were the tenanted properties. Though the said property was cultivated by the family as tenants, the revenue records stood in the name of Sri Ramachandra from 1942 to 1948 as protected tenant. In the year 1948 Late Sri Ramachandra joined service and taking advantage of the same Late Sri Namani got his name entered in the revenue records. However, the name of Sri ramachandra also continued in the revenue records as tenant. As both the families did not get on well somewhere in the year 1980-81 they started messing separately. But, the suit properties were enjoyed by the family members jointly. No partition by metes and bounds was effected. In the year 1973 when Sri Ramachandra retired from service, he requested his brother Late Sri namani to effect partition by metes and bounds and allot him half share in the suit properties. Sri namani did not accede to the said request. As the agricultural lands were tenanted lands and with the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in the year 1974, all the tenanted lands vested with the Government. Therefore, Sri Ramachandra filed an application in Form No. VII for grant of occupancy rights. Similarly, Late Sri Namani also filed an application before the land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights. Late Sri Ramachandra claimed half share whereas sri Namani claimed the entire property. Both the applications were clubbed together and by an order dated 22.4.1976 in case No. LBM. . Belgaurn/sr-l10-165, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of both the brothers. Late Sri Namani challenged the said order by preferring a Writ Petition W. P. No. 4478 of 76 before this Court. The order of the Land Tribunal was set aside by this Court by its order dated 6.2.1978 and the matter w
