THIMMAPPA RAI versus RAMANNA RAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 09-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THIMMAPPA RAJ 
A 
v. 
RAMANNA RA! AND ORS. 
MAY9,2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Partition: 
Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955- s.2(a)- Grant of 
occupation right in favour of eldest son of original lessee in respect of C 
Schedule 'B' property- Other brothers andfather also been in joint possession 
of properties and having joint residence at all material times- Held: The 
property would vest in all of them, although certificate may be granted in 
favour of only one- Suit for partition thus maintainable in respect of Schedule 
'B' property-Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-s.17. 
D 
Propirty belonging to a brother who died intestate without leaving 
any heir- Finding of fact by courts below that said property devolved upon 
all the heirs in equal share-Held: Said finding cannot be disturbed. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Admission-Made by party to suit in an earlier proceedings- Held: Is 
admissible as against him-Such admission being a relevant fact, courts 
below entitled to take notice thereof for arriving at a decision relying on or 
on the basis thereof together with other materials brought on records by the 
parties. 
Appellant and respondents are sons and daughters of 'N'. Wife of 'N' 
predeceased him. Respondent filed a suit for partition in respect of properties 
described in Schedules 'B', 'C' and 'D' of the plaint. The property in Schedule 
'B' was taken on lease by 'N'. The parties had been living together. 
In 1960, however, the deed oflease was executed in favour of appellant 
who was eldest son of 'N'. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land 
Reforms Act, 1961, he filed a suit for declaration that he had been cultivating 
the said· lease hold property for and on behalf of all the heirs and LRs of 'N'. 
283 
E 
F 
G 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A Occupancy right was granted in his favour. 
One or the respondents 'A' died intestate without leaving any heir and 
his I/5th share devolved on appellant and respondent nos. I to 3 and respondent 
no.4, widow of brother 'S'. The 'C' schedule property belonged to 'A'. On his 
death, it devolved upon all his heirs. Properties described in Schedule 'D' 
B was obtained by 'N' in partition between him and his sisters. Thus, on his 
death, the same devolved upon his children. 
The Trial Judge rejected the claim of the appellant holding that the 
settlement made in his favour by grant of occupancy right in the year 1974 
enured to the benefit of all the heirs and legal representatives of 'N'. 
• 
C Admission on the part of the appellant who examined himself as D.W.I, 
according to the trial judge, established that it was 'N' who had taken the 
said property on lease and only on his advice and at his instance the deed of 
lease was executed by the landlord in favour of the appellant. The said finding 
of the trial judge has been affirmed by the High Court. 
D 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the grant of lease in 
favour of tenant at the material time was governed by the provisions of the 
Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 and that by reason thereof, 
the appellant alone became the tenant in respect of the property in suit; that 
upon coming into force of the Karnatka Land Reforms Act, 1961 the tenants 
were required to file declaration and as the Land Tribunal has the exclusive 
E jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether the lease in terms of 
1955 Act had been granted in favour of the appellant for the benefit of the 
entire joint family or not, even could not have been determined by the Civil 
Court; that occupancy right could not have been granted in favour of 'N' 
although he might have been the original lessee and that the parties admittedly 
F are governed under Aliyasanthana Customary Law and not under the 
Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and in that view of the matter, the concept of 
joint family property as is ordinarily understood could have been applied for 
determination of the issues involved in the suit. The Trial Judge as also the 
High Court, therefore, have committed a serious error in passing a decree 
for partition in respect of Schedule (B) property. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The judgments of the Trial Court as also the High Court in 
respect of the properties described in Schedule (B) and (C) of the plaint are 
;... -
affirmed. However, in respect of Schedule "D" property, it is set aside. 
H 
[Para 34] [295-8) 
THIMMAPPA RAJ v. 

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