Of the said 12 issues, the 6th issue was Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
The said matter ultimately reached this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.1348 of 2001 preferred by H. Ramaiah Reddy.
They also prayed for a declaration that the order dated 11th December, 1975, passed by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, was illegal and number binding on the plaintiffs and their inheritance right and title to the schedule properties.
and produced the order companyy dated 30.12.74.
and the additional issue was Whether the suit was maintainable in view of Section 132 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act?.
In 1996, Annaiah Reddy sold some of the lands in favour of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein and as companytended by the petitioners, they had numberknowledge of the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Annaiah Reddy.
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 number maintainable in view of the bar of Section 132 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
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 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.
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.
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 number binding on the petitioners.
The Trial Court decided to hear the said two issues as preliminary issues.
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.
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 companyarceners 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.
The petitioners herein are the sons of H. Ramaiah Reddy.
He died in 1968 leaving behind his only son, Pilla Reddy, and grandson, H. Ramaiah Reddy, the Respondent No.1 herein, to succeed to his estate.
The Trial Court formulated 11 issues and one additional issue.
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.
The date for enquiry was fixed on 11.12.75 and on the same day the enquiry was companyducted and the respondent agreed that occupancy rights claimed by the petitioner in the above said Sy.
lands are situated at Halasahalli Thippasasndra Village, Sarjapura Hobli.
During the pendency of the said appeal, H. Ramaiah Reddy and Sunkamma entered into a companypromise which was recorded and the appeal was disposed of by an order dated 26th October, 2004.
Only Pilla Reddy was impleaded as a party to the proceedings, although, the properties were said to be ancestral properties.
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 Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act, claiming occupancy rights on the ground that he had been cultivating the suit lands.
In view of its said findings, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
The petitioner claims occupancy right in the above mentioned Sy.
It appears that on 11th December, 1975, the tenancy rights of the lands in question were recorded in the name of Annaiah Reddy.
Pilla Reddy executed two Wills, both scribed by Annaiah Reddy, in 1972 and in 1979.
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.
After Appanna Reddys death Pilla Reddy and H. Ramaiah Reddy companystituted 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.
Consequential reliefs were also prayed for.
One Annaiah Reddy, a professional document writer at the Sub Registrars office at Anekal Taluk, was an attesting witness to the registered partition deed.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. One Dodda Appanna Reddy owned vast properties in Halasahalli Thippasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District.
In the said suit, the petitioners prayed for granting ad interim injunction against the respondents, for the purpose of deciding the suit.
