R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. versus H. RAMAIAH REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 943 · Decided: 17-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 943 
R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. 
v. 
H. RAMAIAH REDDY AND ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6286 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Limitation: Cause of action - Land Tribunal granted 
occupancy rights in respect of suit properties in 1975 - Suit 
filed in 2005 cha(lenging the order granting occupancy rights C 
- Held.' Suit is barred by limitation as records show that father 
of plaintiffs had knowledge of grant of occupancy rights - Land 
Reforms. 
K.amataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: s.132 - Question D 
regarding occupancy rights - Jurisdiction of civil court - Held: 
Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to decide such a 
question - Such question is in the domain of Land Tribunal 
- Land Reforms - Jurisdiction. 
On death of 'DAR', his son, 'PR' and grandson 'HRR', E 
the respondent no.1 succeeded to his estate. They both 
constituted a joint family in respect ·of the ancestral 
properties and were in joint possession of the properties. 
In 1972, there was a partition of properties between 'PR' 
and his son 'HRR'. One 'AR' was an attesting witness to F 
the registered partition deed. The said 'AR' filed an 
application in 1974 under Section 48 of the Karnataka 
Land 'Reforms Act, 1961, claiming occupancy rights in 
respect of suit lands on the ground that he had been 
cultivating the suit lands. 'PR' was impleaded as a party, G 
but, 'HRR" was not made party although the properties 
were joint properties. On 11th December, 1975, the 
occupancy rights were recorded in the name of 'AR'. The 
order stated that 'PR' had agreed to the claim of 
943 
H 
944 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
occupancy rights of 'AR'. This order was never 
challenged by 'PR' as having been obtained by fraudulent 
means. 
In 1986 after death of 'PR', his second wife filed 
8 
partition suit. A compromise was entered between the 
parties and matter was disposed of in the year 2004. 
Meanwhile, in 1996, 'AR' sold some of the lands in favour 
of respondent no.2 to 5. In 2005, respondent no.2 to 5 
tried to disturb the possession of sons of 'HRR', the 
petitioners. The petitioners filed suit for declaration that 
C they were coparceners of undivided Hindu Joint Family " 
of 'DAR'. They also prayed for declaration that order 
dated 11th December, 1975 passed by Land Tribunal was 
illegal and not binding on them and their inheritance right 
and title to the properties. 
D 
E 
F 
Trial Court 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 ~ct, 1961. 
High Court Upheld the decision of the trial cpurt. 
In Special Leave Petition, petitioners contended that 
the suit was within the limitation period and that they had 
no knowledge nor consent of occupancy rights granted 
by the Land Tribunal; and that since the proceedings 
before the Land Tribunal were vitiated by fraud and 
collusion, the bar under Section 132(2) of 1961 Act would 
not apply to the facts of the case. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The order of Land Tribunal was passed on 
11th December, 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. The 
H Trial Court, as well as the High Court, had dealt with the 
R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. v. H. RAMAIAH 
945 
REDDY AND ORS. 
aspect of limitation and had found that it was on record 
A 
that notice of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal 
was given in the village in respect of the application filed 
by 'AR'. It was also on record that the father of the 
petitioners was quite aware of the orders of the Land 
Tribunal since in an earlier suit, he had taken a specific 
B 
stand that one of the suit properties, was a tenanted 
property, and that the Land Tribunal had conferred 
occupancy rights in favour of 'AR'. The High Court 
observed that inspite of the same, father of the petitioners 
did not question the correctness of the order of the c 
Tribunal. It was on that basis that the courts below held 
. that the petitioners had knowledge of the concession 
made by 'PR' in favour of 'AR' and negated their 
contention that they were not aware of the same till they 
signed the compromise petition. Therefore, the cause of 0 
action for the suit cannot be said to have arisen only in 
2004-05 when t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.