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

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.

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.

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.

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