R.Ravindra Reddy & Ors vs H.Ramaiah Reddy & Ors

Respondent No.1 herein, to succeed to his estate. 2

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 3 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 4

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, 5

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 6

the suit was maintainable in view of Section 132(2)

of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act?'.

6. The Trial Court decided to hear the said two

issues as preliminary issues. After hearing the

parties, the Trial Court answered issue No.6 in the

affirmative and additional issue No.1 in the

negative and held that the suit was barred by

limitation and was also not maintainable in view of

the bar of Section 132(2) of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act, 1961. In view of its said findings,

the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the

Trial Court, the petitioners preferred the Regular

First Appeal No.845 of 2006 (PAR) before the

Karnataka High Court at Bangalore. The High Court

also dismissed the appeal endorsing the view taken

by the Trial Court that the petitioners' suit was

clearly barred by limitation and also by virtue of 7 Section 132(2) of the 1961 Act and that Civil Court

had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same.

7. It is against the said judgment and order of

the Karnataka High Court in RFA No.845/2006 (PAR)

that the instant appeal has been filed.

8. On behalf of the petitioners it was urged by

Mr. Raju Ramchandran, learned Senior Advocate,

that since the petitioners were third parties to

the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the order

passed therein did not bind them and they were

separately entitled to file the suit for partition

notwithstanding the orders of the Land Tribunal.

It was also submitted that since the proceedings

before the Land Tribunal were vitiated by fraud and

collusion, the bar under Section 132(2) of the 1961

Act would not apply to the facts of the instant

case and as such the Trial Court was not justified

in holding that the suit was barred under the said

provisions. According to the petitioners, since the 8

suit had been brought within a period of 3 years

from the date of knowledge of the order of the Land

Tribunal and the sale transaction, it was not

barred by limitation and the Trial Court erred in

dismissing the same on the ground of limitation.

9. Elaborating on his submissions, Mr.

Ramchandran submitted that in order to be

recognized and recorded as an occupant under

Section 45 of the 1961 Act, the person concerned

would be entitled to make an application to the

Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the Act

and every such application would have to be made

before the expiry of the period of 6 months from

the date of commencement of Section (1) of the

Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978. Mr.

Ramchandran contended that the inquiry by the

Tribunal contemplated under Section 48-A(5) had

necessarily to be confined to the determination of

the claim of tenancy of the applicant and in the 9

event such a question arose during the pendency of

a civil or criminal proceeding, no civil or

criminal Court or officer would be entitled to

decide the question whether such land was

agricultural land or not and whether the person

claiming to be in possession is or is not the

tenant of the suit land from prior to 1st March,

1974, in view of Section 133(1)(i) of the aforesaid

Act.

10. Reference was also made to Rule 17 of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1977 (hereinafter

referred to as the `1974 Rules') which prescribes

the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in

respect of a summary inquiry under Section 34 of

the 1961 Act. It was urged that since the procedure

was summary in nature, questions relating to fraud

or the validity of a concession made by the

petitioners' grand-father could only be gone into

by a Civil Court and not in the summary proceedings 10

before the Tribunal. Mr. Ramchandran submitted

that it would be evident from the frame of the suit

that no such question, as contemplated under

Section 48-A, was involved in the suit which was

essentially one for declaration that the

petitioners were coparceners of the undivided Hindu

Joint Family of late Dodda Appanna Reddy and

partition of the scheduled property by metes and

bounds and to put the plaintiff in separate

possession of their legitimate 1/4th share each in

the scheduled properties. A further prayer was

made to declare that the order dated 11th December,

1975, passed by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, in

Case No.LRF/A.T.C./154/75-76, was illegal and not

binding on the petitioners and did not affect their

inheritance rights and title to the scheduled

properties. A further declaration was sought that

the sale deeds executed by Late Annaiah Reddy in

favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 was a sham

transaction and not binding on the petitioners. 11

Mr. Ramchandran submitted that the Tribunal was not

competent to determine the said questions which

could only be decided by the Civil Court.

11. In support of his aforesaid submissions,

Mr. Ramchandran firstly referred to the decision of

this Court in Saraswati & Ors. vs. Lachanna [(1994)

1 SCC 611], in which a similar provision in the

A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural

Lands Act, 1950, where the Civil Court's

jurisdiction had been barred, fell for

consideration and it was held that a suit relating

to redemption of usufructuary mortgage filed in the

Civil Court was not barred and was maintainable,

having regard to the provisions of Section 9 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. This Court held that bar

on the power of the Civil Court to entertain a suit

could not be inferred with, where the statute did

not create a right or after creating a right did 12

not provide a forum for adjudication of any dispute

arising out of such right.

12. Mr. Ramchandran also referred to the decision

of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC

161], where the same principle was reiterated and

it was held that the Court's jurisdiction to go

into the question as to whether the order was a

nullity being vitiated by jurisdictional error was

not barred.

13. Reference was also made to the decision of this

Court in the case of Swamy Atmananda & Ors. vs. Sri

Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors. [(2005) 10 SCC 51],

where a dispute over title under the Tamil Nadu

Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973,

was claimed to be barred under Section 53 of the

Act. This Court held that such a dispute was not

one that was required to be decided under the

provisions of the aforesaid Act, and, accordingly, 13

the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in terms of

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure was not excluded.

It was emphasized that the ouster of the Civil

Court's jurisdiction was not to be readily

inferred.

14. Mr. Ramchandran lastly referred to the

decision of this Court in Sudhir G. Angur & Ors.

vs. M. Sanjeev & Ors. [2006 (1) SCC 141], wherein,

while considering the provisions of the Mysore

Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927,

this Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil

Court in regard to matters containing serious

allegations of forgery, fraud and diversion of

trust properties, could not be inquired into in a

summary manner and could only be gone into by a

Court.

15. On the question of limitation, Mr. Ramchandran

submitted that the High Court erred in deciding the

question of limitation without considering the 14

fraudulent nature of the consent said to have been

given by Pilla Reddy, although, he had no

independent right or title over the property to

give consent for granting occupancy rights in

favour of Annaiah Reddy. Mr. Ramchandran submitted

that the High Court erred in holding that the suit

was barred by limitation without taking evidence in

that regard. In support of his aforesaid

submission, Mr. Ramchandran referred to the

decision of this Court in Jatinder Singh & Anr. vs.

Mehar Singh & Ors. [AIR 2009 SC 354], in which this

Court set aside the decision of the High Court for

having failed to take notice of an application

filed by the Appellant therein under Order 41 Rule

27 CPC while deciding the second appeal. This

Court held that when such an application was

pending, it was the duty of the High Court to deal

with the same on merits and not having been done

so, there was no other alternative, but to set

aside the judgment of the High Court and to remit 15

the appeal for a fresh decision in the second

appeal after taking into consideration the

application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

16. In the same context, reference was also made

to a subsequent decision of this Court in Balawwa &

Anr. vs. Hasanabi & Ors. [(2000) 9 SCC 272], in

which the question of ouster of the Civil Court's

jurisdiction fell for consideration in view of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. This Court held

that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted

only in respect of such reliefs as could be granted

by the Special Tribunal under the Special Statute

but in other respects the jurisdiction of the Civil

Court was not ousted.

17. Mr. Ramchandran submitted that the preliminary

issue relating to the bar of jurisdiction of the

Civil Court, as envisaged under Section 133 (2) of

the 1961 Act, could not have been decided without

taking evidence as to the character of the lands in 16

question. Mr. Ramchandran submitted that the order

of the High Court was not capable of being

entertained and was liable to be set aside.

18. On the other hand, appearing for the Respondent

No.1, Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned Senior Advocate,

pointed out from the plaint of OS No.1457 of 2005,

filed by R. Ravindra Reddy in the Court of

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore

Rural District, Bangalore, that a fraud had been

perpetrated by the said Annaiah Reddy only to

deprive the plaintiffs of their right and share in

the scheduled properties. Mr. Vasudev pointed out

that in the same breath it had also been admitted

that Pilla Reddy had conceded grant of tenancy

rights in favour of late Annaiah Reddy, though

without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Vasudev submitted that the question of

obtaining the consent of the plaintiffs by their

grandfather, Pilla Reddy, for grant of tenancy 17

rights in favour of Annaiah Reddy, did not arise

since he was holding the tenancy rights in respect

of the said land.

19. Mr. Vasudev also referred to paragraph 16 of

the plaint where it was stated that the cause of

action for the suit arose in January 2005 as the

plaintiffs/respondents were continuously demanding

partition and separate possession of their share in

the scheduled properties and the petitioners herein

failed to effect partition, but the other

respondents were continuing to make attempts to

trespass/interfere with and to disturb the

Respondent No.1's possession and enjoyment of the

scheduled properties.

20. Mr. Vasudev then brought to our notice the

proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore

District, Anekal Taluk, in Case No.LRF/A.T.C./154/

75-76 dated 11th December, 1975, in which the

Petitioner was shown as M. Annaiah Reddy and H. 18

Pilla Reddy was shown as the Respondent. In the

proceedings under Section 48-A of the 1961 Act, the

application filed by M. Annaiah Reddy was disposed

of by the following order :-

"All the above mentioned Sy. Nos. lands are situated at Halasahalli Thippasasndra Village, Sarjapura Hobli. The petitioner claims occupancy right in the above mentioned Sy. Nos. and produced the order copy dated 30.12.74. The date for enquiry was fixed on 11.12.75 and on the same day the enquiry was conducted and the respondent agreed that occupancy rights claimed by the petitioner in the above said Sy. Nos. Therefore all the members of the Tribunal have unanimously accepted the contention of the petitioner and the respondent and resolved to grant occupancy rights in favour of petitioner to the extent of lands in the above-said Sy. Nos. as per possession."

21. Mr. Vasudev submitted that it would be amply

clear from the said order that Pilla Reddy had

agreed to the claim of occupancy rights by M.

Annaiah Reddy. Furthermore, such order had never

been questioned by H. Pilla Reddy as being

fraudulent or having been obtained by fraudulent

means.

19

22. Mr. Vasudev referred to the decision of this

Court in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India

Ltd. [(2008) 12 SCC 481], in which the issue

relating to fraud perpetrated on Court was

considered in detail and it was held that fraud

practised on the Court would vitiate all judicial

acts, since fraud is an act of deliberate deception

with the design of securing something by taking

unfair advantage of another.

23. Mr. Vasudev also referred to the decision of

this Court in Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa [AIR 1994 SC

1190], in which this Court held that the Tribunal

under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was entitled

to decide the question as to whether the joint

family or one of its members was a tenant in

respect of the land in question and that such

decision was subject to review under Articles 226

and 227 of the Constitution.

20

24. Mr. Vasudev submitted that since the

preliminary objections made on behalf of the

Respondent No.1 herein had been duly accepted

relating to the maintainability of the suit, on

account of the bar imposed under Section 133(1)(i)

and (2) of the 1961 Act and the bar of limitation,

no interference was called for with the impugned

judgment of the High Court.

25. As has been mentioned hereinbefore, out of 11

issues and the additional issue formulated by the

Trial Court, issue No.6 and the additional issue

relating to the bar of limitation and

maintainability in view of Section 132(2) of the

1961 Act, were taken up for consideration as

preliminary issues. In fact, in view of the

decision on the said two issues, no other issue was

either taken up for consideration or decided. Our

inquiry in this petition is, therefore, confined to

the said two issues alone.

21

26. The Trial Court answered issue No.6 in the

affirmative and additional issue No.1 in the

negative holding that the suit was barred by

limitation and was not maintainable in view of the

bar of Section 132(2) of the 1961 Act. We have

considered the submissions made on behalf of the

respective parties in respect of the two issues and

we agree with the views expressed by the Trial

Court as also the High Court on the said two

issues.

27. As far as the question of limitation is

concerned, the order of the Land Tribunal, Anekal,

was passed on 11th December, 1975, whereas the suit

was filed by the Petitioners herein 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

has been made to bring the said suit within the

period of limitation by indicating that the 22

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 had tried to disturb the

possession of the Petitioners during the year 2004-

05 on the ground of their alleged purchase of the

suit lands from Annaiah Reddy. It was sought to

be urged that Pilla Reddy had admitted the claim of

the Respondents on having acquired occupancy rights

before the Tribunal, without the knowledge and

consent of the Petitioners. Both the Trial Court,

as well as the High Court, have dealt with this

aspect of the matter and have found that it was on

record that notice of the proceedings before the

Land Tribunal had been given in the village in

respect of the application filed by Annaiah Reddy.

It is also on record that the father of the

Petitioners was quite aware of the orders of the

Land Tribunal as in OS No.75 of 1986 he had taken a

specific stand that one of the suit properties,

namely, Survey No.46, is a tenanted property, and

that the Land Tribunal, Anekal, had conferred

occupancy rights in favour of M. Annaiah Reddy. 23

The High Court has observed that inspite of the

same, the father of the Petitioners did not

question the correctness of the order of the

Tribunal. It is on that basis that the Courts below

held that the Petitioners had knowledge of the

concession made by Pilla Reddy in favour of Annaiah

Reddy and negated their contention that they were

not aware of the same till they signed the

compromise petition before this Court in the appeal

arising out of OS No.75 of 1986.

28. We are, therefore, unable to accept Mr.

Ramchandran's submissions that the cause of action

for the suit arose only in 2004-05 when the

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 purportedly attempted to

disturb the possession of the Petitioners.

29. As far as the second issue is concerned,

although ouster of jurisdiction of the Courts is

not to be readily inferred, it is quite clear from

the provisions of Sections 132(2) and 133(1)(i) of 24

the 1961 Act that the 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 the 1961 Act which

provides as follows :-

"132. Bar of jurisdiction - (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, an officer authorized under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83, the Tribunal, the Tehsildar, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control.

(2) No order of the Deputy Commissioner, an officer authorized under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83, the Tribunal, the Tehsildar, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or the State Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court."

Furthermore, Section 133(1)(i) and (2) of the

Act read as follows :-

"133. Suits, proceedings, etc., involving questions required to be decided by the 25

Tribunal.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force.-

(i) no civil or criminal court or officer or authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land decide the question whether such land is or not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March, 1974;

(ii) x x x

(ii) x x x

(iii) x x x

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall

preclude the civil or criminal court or the officer or authority from proceeding with the suit, case or proceedings in respect of any matter other than that referred to in that sub- section."

30. It is clear from the above that the

jurisdiction of the Civil or Criminal Court or

Officer or Authority stood ousted in matters where

a decision had to be taken as to whether the land

in question was agricultural land or not and

whether the person claiming to be in possession is

or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 26

1st April, 1974. In the instant case, the question

as to whether Annaiah Reddy was an occupancy tenant

or not and whether Pilla Reddy had given his

consent to such claim is in the domain of the Land

Tribunal and it has been correctly held by the

Courts below that the Civil Court had no

jurisdiction to decide such a question.

31. As far as fraud is concerned, it is no doubt

true, as submitted by Mr. Ramchandran, that fraud

vitiates all actions taken pursuant thereto and in

Lord Denning's words `fraud unravels everything'.

However, in the instant case, there is nothing on

record to suggest that Annaiah Reddy committed any

fraud on Pilla Reddy, who willingly accepted the

claim of Annaiah Reddy to occupancy rights over the

land in question.

32. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to

interfere with the judgment and order of the High 27

Court impugned in these proceedings and the Special

Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

33. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

________________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

________________J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated:17.02.2010