IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters to be decided by the Tribunal, and to question a decision of the Tribunal stands ousted by Section 132 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Headnote:Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961- Section 132(2) - Suit for declaration filed by petitioners alleging that they were coparceners of the undivided Hindu Joint Family of late D 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 schedule properties- A further declaration was sought for that sale deeds executed by A in favour of Defendant Nos.2 to 4 were illegal and not binding on the petitioners- Said suit was dismissed by Trial Court holding that suit was barred by limitation and was also not maintainable in view of the bar of Section 132(2) of Act, 1961-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court endorsing the view taken by the Trial Court –Appeal-As far as the question of limitation is concerned, order of Land Tribunal,was passed on 11.12. 1975, whereas the suit was filed by the Petitioners in 2005 seeking declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of the properties which were the subject matter of the order of the Tribunal- An attempt had been made to bring said suit within period of limitation by indicating that Respondent Nos.2 to 5 had tried to disturb possession of Petitioners during the year 2004-05 on the ground of their alleged purchase of suit lands from A- Both Trial Court,as well as High Court, dealt with this aspect of the matter and found that it was on record that notice of the proceedings before Land Tribunal had been given in the village in respect of the application filed by A-Evidence on record that father of Petitioners was quite aware of orders of Land Tribunal as in OS No.75 of 1986 he had taken a specific stand that one of the suit properties, was a tenanted property, and that Land Tribunal, Anekal, had conferred occupancy rights in favour of M. - High Court observed that inspite of same, father of Petitioners did not question correctness of order of Tribunal-It is on that basis that the Courts below held that Petitioners had knowledge of concession made by P in favour of A and negated their contention that they were not aware of the same till they signed compromise petition before this Court in the appeal arising out of OS No.75 of 1986- Again question as to whether A was an occupancy tenant or not and whether P had given his consent to such claim was in the domain of Land Tribunal and it had been correctly held by Courts below that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide such a question- No reason to interfere with judgment and order of High Court – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 27 to 33)
       Facts of the Case :
        Suit for declaration was filed by petitioners herein in the instant case alleging that they were coparceners of the undivided Hindu Joint Family of late D 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 schedule properties.A further declaration was sought for that sale deeds executed by A in favour of Defendant Nos.2 to 4 were illegal and not binding on the petitioners. Said suit was dismissed by Trial Court holding that suit was barred by limitation and was also not maintainable in view of the bar of Section 132(2) of Act, 1961.Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court endorsing the view taken by Trial Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        As far as the question of limitation is concerned, order of Land Tribunal,was passed on 11.12. 1975, whereas the suit was filed by the Petitioners in 2005 seeking declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of the properties which were the subject matter of the order of the Tribunal. An attempt had been made to bring said suit within period of limitation by indicating that Respondent Nos.2 to 5 had tried to disturb possession of Petitioners during the year 2004-05 on the ground of their alleged purchase of suit lands from A. Both Trial Court,as well as High Court, dealt with this aspect of the matter and found that it was on record that notice of the proceedings before Land Tribunal had been given in the village in respect of the application filed by A. Evidence on record showed that father of Petitioners was quite aware of orders of Land Tribunal as in OS No.75 of 1986 he had taken a specific stand that one of the suit properties, was a tenanted property, and that Land Tribunal, Anekal, had conferred occupancy rights in favour of M. High Court observed that inspite of same, father of Petitioners did not question correctness of order of Tribunal.It is on that basis that the Courts below held that Petitioners had knowledge of concession made by P in favour of A and negated their contention that they were not aware of the same till they signed compromise petition before this Court in the appeal arising out of OS No.75 of 1986. Again question as to whether A was an occupancy tenant or not and whether P had given his consent to such claim was in the domain of Land Tribunal and it had been correctly held by Courts below that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide such a question. No reason was found to interfere with judgment and order of High Court .Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
       Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 168

2010 (2) Supreme SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAltamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.R. Ravindra Reddy & Ors. — PetitionersversusH. Ramaiah Reddy & Ors. — RespondentsSpecial Leave Petition (civil) No.6286/2009Decided on : 17-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINT Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters to be decided by the Tribunal, and to question a decision of the Tribunal stands ousted by Section 132 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Cases Referred (7)

2010 (2) Supreme
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
R. Ravindra Reddy & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
H. Ramaiah Reddy & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (civil) No.6286/2009
Decided on : 17-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters to be decided by the Tribunal, and to question a decision of the Tribunal stands ousted by Section 132 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.