B.L. SREEDHAR AND ORS. versus K.M. MUNIREDDY (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 05-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B.L. SREEDHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
K.M. MUNIREDDY (DEAD) AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 5, 2002 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
land laws-Service inam lands-Resumed by Government-Regrant-
Effect of-If grant is made to any member of the family, the benefit enures to 
the whole family-Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 115-Estoppel-Scope and applicability 
of -Discussed. 
legal Maxims: 
A 
B 
c 
"Allegans contrarir non est audiendus "-Meaning of-Discussed. 
D 
Service inam lands were assigned to hereditary office as an 
emolument in consideration of services. Plaintiff succeeded to hereditary 
office and also to the service inam lands and other properties belonging 
to his father. The Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 was passed E 
and Government resumed the lands; however, it provided for re~grant of 
resumed lands. Plaintiff claimed to be karta of HUF and obtained an order 
for re-grant of lands under the Act. He then consented for re-grant of 
entire land in favour of his son-defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 thereafter 
obtained permission and sold part of the land to defendant nos. 7 to 9 who 
sold it to defendant nos. I and 2. Sale deeds were executed by defendant F 
no.3 and defendant nos. 4 to 6. There were series of litigation between 
defendant No. 3 and defendant Nos. I and 2. Plaintiff filed suit for 
declaration and injunction on the ground that defendant Nos. I and 2 had 
dispossessed plaintiff. Trial Court decreed the suit and granted injunction 
against defendant Nos.I and 2. It held that principle of estoppel was not 
applicable. High Court held that the principles of estoppel and res judicata G 
were applicable and directed the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter afresh. 
Tribunal rejected the claim of defendant No 3. Writ petition and writ 
appeal were dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Plaintiff and defendant no.3 contended that principles of estoppel H 
601 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A and res judicata are not applicable; that High Court's conclusion that plea 
~, 
of plaintiff that he was unawace of the proceedings cannot be accepted in 
view of the fact that according to his own showing he was staying jointly 
with defendant no.3; that minor sons' claims are barred by time, having 
not been presented within the specified time after attaining majority; that 
B 
suit was on behalf of joint family; that plaintiff was not entitled to specific 
relief under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 he having not come to 
court with clean hands, has no foundation or basis; that conclusion of High 
Court that litigations by defendant no.3 were instituted as for himself, 
plaintiff and defendant nos. 4 to 6 is again based on surmises; that High 
Court lost sight of the fact that because of the wayward conduct of 
c defendant No.3, relationship with him had turned sour and there was no 
connection between plaintiff and other members of his family and 
defendant no.3; and that suit was filed by plaintiff and other members of 
the family; and that on re-grant the benefit enures to the entire family. 
Respondents contended that the factual position highlighted by High 
D Court shows that there was a mischievous attempt to deprive the alienees 
of the legitimate rights; that High Court rightly came to the conclusion 
that plaintiff was estopped from raising the pleas; that there is no truth 
in the submission that suit was filed by plaintiff for himself and other 
family members as the relief claimed ma.ke the position abundantly clear 
E that plaintiff had claimed absolute ownership; that the plea of strained 
relationship between plaintiff and defendant no.3 has been taken for the 
first time before this Court; and that there was no plea to this effect in 
the suit, not even before High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: l. Even if grant is made under the Mysore Village Officers 
Abolition Act, 1961 to any member of the family, the benefit enures to 
.,..( 
the whole family. [608-F) 
Nagesh Bisto Desai and Ors. v. Khando.Tirma/ Desai and Ors., [1982) 
G 2 SCC 79; Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil and Ors., 
[1989) Supp. l SCC 246 and New Kenilworth Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Ashoka 
Industries Ltd. and Ors., [1995) 1 SCC 161, referred to. 
,;. 
2.1. If a man either by words or by conduct has intimated that he 
consents to an act which has been done and that he will not offer any 
H opposition to it, although it could no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.