SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Raj) 220

[Citation : RLW 2010(1) RJ 450 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
R. Ravindra Reddy & Ors. Vs. H. Ramaiah Reddy & Ors. (Kabir, J.)
HON'BLE ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
HON'BLE CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.
R. Ravindra Reddy & Ors.
Versus
H. Ramaiah Reddy & Ors.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6286 of 2009, decided on 17.02.2010

Headnote:(a) Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 58 — Suit for decleration, partition and permanent injunction — Occupancy rights granted by tribunal in favour of `A' — Father of petitioner was aware of orders of tribunal — `A' sold some of lands in favour of respondents — Petitioner filed suit after 30 years of order given by Tribunal — Held — Suit for decleration that the order of tribunal was illegal was barred by limitation. (Paras 26, 28)

       ¼d½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963] vuqPNsn 58 & ?kks"k.kk] foHkktu ,oa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKkFkZ okn & vf/kdj.k }kjk ^,* ds i{k esa vf/kHkksx vf/kdkj iznku fd;s x;s & izkFkhZ ds firk vf/kdj.k ds vkns'k ls fHkK Fks & ^,* us Hkwfe dk dqN fgLlk izR;FkhZx.k ds i{k esa foØ; fd;k & vf/kdj.k }kjk fn;s x;s vkns'k ds 30 o"kZ i'pkr~ izkFkhZ us okn nk;j fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vf/kdj.k dk vkns'k voS/k Fkk] dh ?kks"k.kkFkZ okn ifjlhek ls oftZr FkkA ¼in la[;k 26] 28½

       (b) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1962, Sec. 132(2), 133(1) and C.P.C., Sec. 9 — Jurisdiction of Courts — Suit for decleration that whether respondent claiming to be in possession was a occupancy tenant or not? — Whether land owner had given consent to such claim — Held — These are the question to be decided by land tribunal — Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to decide such a question. (Para 30)

       Petition dismissed.

       ¼[k½ dukZVd Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kfu;e] 1962] /kkjk 132¼2½] 133¼1½ ,oa fl-iz-la-] /kkjk 9 & U;k;ky;ksa dh vf/kdkfjrk & bl ?kks"k.kkFkZ okn fd D;k dkfct gksus dk nkok djus okyk izR;FkhZ vf/kHkksxh dk'rdkj Fkk ;k ugha\ & D;k Hkw-Lokeh us ,sls nkos ds fy, lgefr nh Fkh\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;s ,sls iz'u gS ftudk fu.kZ; Hkwfe vf/kdj.k }kjk fd;k tkuk gS & ,sls iz'u dk fu.kZ; djus dh vf/kdkfjrk flfoy U;k;ky;ksa dks izkIr ugha gSA ¼in la[;k 30½

       ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA

Hon'ble KABIR, J.— One Dodda Appanna Reddy owned vast properties in Halasahalli Thippasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. He died in 1968 leaving behind his only son, Pilla Reddy, and grandson, H. Ramaiah Reddy, the Respondent No.1 herein, to succeed to his estate. The petitioners herein are the sons of H. Ramaiah Reddy.

2. After Appanna Reddy’s death Pilla Reddy and H. Ramaiah Reddy constituted a joint family in respect of the ancestral properties and were in joint possession and enjoyment of the various properties, including the suit schedule properties.

3. In 1972, there was a partition of the properties between Pilla Reddy and his son, H. Ramaiah Reddy, in respect of the joint family and ancestral properties. One Annaiah Reddy, a professional document writer at the Sub-Registrar’s office at Anekal Taluk, was an attesting witness to the registered partition deed. Pilla Reddy executed two Wills, both scribed by Annaiah Reddy, in 1972 and in 1979. The said Annaiah Reddy filed an application on 30th December, 1974, for grant of tenancy rights in respect of the suit schedule lands under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”, claiming occupancy rights on the ground that he had been cultivating the suit lands. Only Pilla Reddy was impleaded as a party to the proceedings, although, the properties were said to be ancestral properties. It appears that on 11th December, 1975, the tenancy rights of the lands in question were recorded in the name of Annaiah Reddy.

4. In 1986, one Sunkamma claiming to be the second wife of Pilla Reddy, filed a partition suit after the death of Pilla Reddy, seeking partition and separate possession of his various properties. In 1996, Annaiah Reddy sold some of the lands in favour of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein and as contended by the petitioners, they had no knowledge of the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Annaiah Reddy. The said matter ultimately reached this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.1348 of 2001 preferred by H. Ramaiah Reddy. During the pendency of the said appeal, H. Ramaiah Reddy and Sunkamma entered into a compromise which was recorded and the appeal was disposed of by an order dated 26th October, 2004. Inasmuch as, the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 tried to disturb the possession of the petitioners on the strength of their purported purchase of the suit lands from Annaiah Reddy, the petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit, being No.1457/2005, in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore, inter alia, for a declaration that they were coparceners of the undivided Hindu Joint Family of late Dodda Appanna Reddy and for partition of the scheduled properties by metes and bounds and to put the plaintiffs in separate possession of their legitimate 1/4th share each in the schedule properties. They also prayed for a declaration that the order dated 11th December, 1975, passed by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, was illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and their inheritance right and title to the schedule properties. A further declaration was sought for that the sale deeds executed by Annaiah Reddy in favour of the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 were illegal and not binding on the petitioners. Along with the said relief, the petitioners also prayed for a mandatory injunction to direct the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, to effect the mutation and revenue entries in respect of the schedule properties in the joint names of the petitioners and the first defendant. Consequential reliefs were also prayed for.

5. In the said suit, the petitioners prayed for granting ad-interim injunction against the respondents, for the purpose of deciding the suit. The Trial Court formulated 11 issues and one additional issue. Of the said 12 issues, the 6th issue was ‘Whether the suit was barred by limitation?’ and the additional issue was ‘Whether the suit was maintainable in view of Section











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top