R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS.versusH. RAMAIAH REDDY AND ORS.

                    [2010] 2 S.C.R. 943


             R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS.                        A
                             v.
             H. RAMAIAH REDDY AND ORS.
     (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6286 of 2009)
                   FEBRUARY 17, 2010
                                                               B
     [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

      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
    partition suit. A compromise was entered between the
8
    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
        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.
E
         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
F   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 the respondent Nos.2 to 5 purportedly
 attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioners.
 [Paras 27 and 28] [956-C-H; 957-A-C]
     2.1. Regarding the second issue, although ouster of        E
jurisdiction of the Courts is not to be readily inferred, it
is quite clear from the provisions of Sections 132(2) and
133(1)(i) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 that the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters to be decided by
the Tribunal, and to question a decision of the Tribunal        F
stands ousted by Section 132 of the 1961 Act. [Para 29]
[957-0]

     Saraswati & Ors. V. Lachanna (1994) 1 SCC 611; Shiv
Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.           G
(1993) 3 SCC 161; Swamy Atmananda & Ors. v. Sri
Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 51; Sudhir
G. Angur & Ors. v. M. Sanjeev & Ors. 2006 (1) SCC 141;
Jatinder Singh & Anr. v. Mehar Singh & Ors. AIR 2009 SC
354; Balawwa & Anr. v. Hasanabi & Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 272;
                                                                H
    946      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 2 S.C.R. .


A KO. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC
  481; Mudakappa v. Rudrappa AIR 1994 SC 1·190 - referred
  to.

       2.2. The jurisdiction of the Civil or CriminaJ Court or
  Officer or Authority stood ousted in matters where· a
8
  decision had to be taken as to whether the land in
  question was agricultural land or not and whether the
  person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant
  of the said land from prior to 1st April, 1974. In the instant
  case, the question as to whether 'AR' was an occupancy
C tenant or not and whether 'PR" had given his consent to
  such claim is in the domain of the Land Tribunal and it
  has been correctly held by the Courts below that the Civil
  Court had no jurisdiction to decide such a question. As
  far as fraud is concerned, it is no doubt true, that fraud
D vitiates all actions taken pursuant thereto. However, in the
  instant case, there is nothing to suggest that 'AR'
  committed any fraud on 'PR' , who willingly accepted the
  claim of 'AR' to occupancy rights over the land in
  question. In th;it view of the matter, there is no reason to
E interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court.
  [Paras 30, 31 and 32) [958-E-H; 959-A-B]

                         Case law reference:
          (1994) 1 sec 611         referred to          Para 11
F
          (1993) 3 sec 161         referred to          Para 12
          (2005) 1o sec 51         referred to          Para 13
          2006 f1) sec 141         referred to          Para 14
G         AIR 2009 SC 354          referred to          Para 15

          (2000) 9 sec 212         referred to          Para 16

          (2008) 12 sec 481        referred to          Para 22

H
   R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. v. H. RAMAIAH                   917
                    REDDY AND ORS.

     AIR 1994 SC 1190             referred to           Para 23      A

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 6286
 of 2009.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2008 of the High
- Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in RFA No. 845 of 2006 (PAR).        B

      Raju Ramchandran, S.S. Padmaraj, Shankar Divate for
 the Petitioners.

     Kailash Vasudev, Girish Ananthamurthy, lmran Pasha,             C
Vaijayanthi Girish for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. One Dodda Appanna Redd{
owned vast properties in Halasahalli Thippasandra Village, D
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. 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 petitioners herein are the sons of
H. Ran 1aiah Reddy.                                           E

    2. After Appanna Reddy's death Pilla Reddy and H.
Ramaiah Reddy constituted 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.                                                          F

      3. In 1972, there was a partition of the properties between
Pilla Reddy and his son, H. Ramaiah Reddy, in resp.xt of the
joint family and ancestral properties. One Annaiah Reddy, a
professional document writer at the Sub-Registrar's office at        G
Anekal Taluk, was an attesting witness to the registered partition
deed. Pilla Reddy executed two Wills, both scribed by Annaiah
Reddy, in 1972 and in 1979. 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        H
     948      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 2 S:C.R.


A 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. Only Pilla Reddy was
  impleaded as a party to the proceedings, although, the
  properties were said to be ancestral properties. It appears that
B on 11th December, 1975, the tenancy rights of the lands in
  question were recorded in the name of Annaiah Reddy.

           4. In 1986, one Sunkamma claiming to be the second wife
     of Pilla Reddy, filed a partition suit after the death of Pilla Reddy,
.C   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 .
D    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
E    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
F    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
G    dated 11th December, 1975, passed by the Land Tribunal,
     Anekal Taluk, 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
H    illegal and not binding on the petitioners. Along with the said
     R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. v. H. RAMAIAH                     949
         REDDY AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
  relief, the petitioners also prayed for a mandatory injunction to       A
  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
       5. In the said suit, the petitioners prayed for granting ad-
 interim injunction against the respondents, for the purpose of
 deciding the suit. The Trial Court formulated 11 issues and one
 additional issue. Of the said 12 issues, the 6th issue was
 'Whether the suit was barred by limitation?' and the additional
 issue was 'Whether the suit was maintainable in view of                  C
 Section 132(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act?'.

           6. The Trial Court decided to hear the said two issues as
    preliminary issues. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court
    answered issue No.6 in the affirmative and additional issue           D
     No.1 in the negative and 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 Act, 1961. In
    view of its said findings, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs
    suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial          E·
    Court, the petitioners preferred the Regular First Appeal
     No.845 of 2006 (PAR) before the Karnataka High Court at
     Bangalore. The High Court also dismissed the appeal
    endorsing the view taken by the Trial Court that the petitioners'
    suit was clearly barred by limitation and also by virtue of Section
                                                                          F
     132(2) of the 1961 Act and that Civil Court had no jurisdiction
    to entertain and try the same.

      7. 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.                                           G

       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            H
    950     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A 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 L r;:d 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
8 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 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
C by limitation and the Trial Court erred in dismissing the same
  on the ground of limitation.                ·

       9. Elaborating on his submissions, Mr. Ramchandran
  submitted that in order to be recognized and recorded as an
  occupant under Section 45 of the 1961 Act, the person
D concerned would be entitled to make an application to the
  Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the Act and every such
  application would have to be made before the expiry of the
  period of 6 months from the date of commencement of Section
  (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978.
E Mr. Ramchandran contended that the inquiry by the Tribunal
  contemplated under Section 48-A(5) had necessarily to be
  confined to the determination of the claim of tenancy of the
  applicant and in the event such a question arose during the
  pendency of a civil or criminal proceeding, no civil or criminal
F Court or officer would be entitled to decide the question whether
  such land was agricultural land or not and whether the person
  claiming to be in possession is or is not the tenant of the suit
  land from prior to 1st March, 1974, in view of Section 133(1)(i)
  of the aforesaid Act.
G        10. Reference was also made to Rule 17 of the Karnataka
    Land Reforms Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the '1974
    Rules') which prescribes the procedure to be followed by the
    Tribunal in respect of a summary inquiry under Section 34 of
    the 1961 Act. It was urged that since the procedure was
H
        R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. v. H. RAMAIAH                     951
            REDDY AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

     summary in nature, questions relating to fraud or the validity of A
     a concession made by the petitioners' grand-father could only
     be gone into by a Civil Court and not in the summary
     proceedings before the Tribunal. Mr. Ramchandran submitted
     that it would be evident from the frame of the suit that no such
     question, as contemplated under Section 48-A, was involved B
     in the suit which was essentially one for declaration that the
     petitioners were coparceners of the undivided Hindu Joint
     Family of late Dodda Appanna Reddy and partition of the
     scheduled property by metes and bounds and to put the plaintiff
     in separate possession of their legitimate 1/4th share each in         c
     the scheduled properties. A further prayer was made to declare
     that the order dated 11th December, 1975, passed by the Land
     Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, in Case No.LRF/A.T.C./154/75-76, was
     illegal and not binding on the petitioners and did not affect their
     inheritance rights and title to the scheduled properties. A further 0
     declaration was sought that the sale deeds executed by Late
     Annaiah Reddy in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 was a
     sham transaction and not binding oh the petitioners. M~.
·'
     Ramchandran submitted that the Tribunal was not competent
     to determine the said questions which could only be decided E
     by the Civil Court.

           11. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr.
      Ramchandran firstly referred to the decision of this Court in
      Saraswati & Ors. vs. Lachanna [(1994) 1 SCC 611], in which
     a similar provision in the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and           F
     Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, where the Civil Court's jurisdiction
     had been barred, fell for consideration and it was held that a
     suit relating to redemption of usufructuary mortgage filed in the
     Civil Court was not barred and was maintainable, having regard
     to the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.         G
     This Court held that bar on the power of the Civil Court to
     entertain a suit could not be inferred with, where the statute did
     not create a right or after creating a right did not provide a forum
     for adjudication of any dispute arising out of ~uch right.
                                                                            H
    952     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 2 S.C.R.


A         12. Mr. Ramchandran also referred to the decision of this
    Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal
    Corporation of Delhi & Ors. ((1993) 3 SCC 161], where'~'the
    same principle was reiterated and it was held that the Court's
    jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the order was···
B   a nullity being vitiated by jurisdictional error was not barred.

        13. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court
  in the case of Swamy Atmananda & Ors. vs. Sri Ramakrishna
   Tapovanam & Ors. [(2005) 10 sec 51], where a dispute over           I


C title under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools
  (Regulation) Act, 1973, was claimed to be barred under
  Section 53 of the Act. This Court held that such a dispute was '
  not one that was required to be decided under the provisions
  of the aforesaid Act, and, accordingly, the jurisdiction of the Civil
  Court in terms of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure was not
D excluded. It was emphasized that the ouster of the Civil Court's
  jurisdiction was not to be readily inferred.

         14. Mr. Ramchandran lastly referred to the decision of this
    Court in Sudhir G. Angur & Ors. vs. M. Sanjeev & Ors. (2006
E   (1) SCC 141], wherein, while considering the provisions of the
    Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927, this
    Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in regard to
    matters containing serious allegations of forgery, fraud and
    diversion of trust properties, could not be inquired into in a
F   summary manner and could only be gone into by a Court.

        15. On the question of limitation, Mr. Ramchandran
   submitted that the High Court erred in deciding the question of
   limitation without considering the fraudulent nature of the
   consent said to have been given by Pilla Reddy, although, he
G had no independent right or title over the property to give
   consent for granting occupancy rights in favour of Annaiah
   Reddy. Mr. Ramchandran submitted that the High Court erred
   in holding that the suit was barred by limitation without taking
   evidence in thafregard. In s,Upport of his aforesaid submission,
H- Mr. Ramchandran referred to the decision of this Court in
   R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. v. H. RAMAIAH                    953
       REDDY AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

. Jatinder Singh & Anr. vs. Mehar Singh & Ors. [AIR 2009 SC            A
  354], in which this Court set aside the decision of the High Court
  for having failed to take notice of an application filed by the
  Appellant therein under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC while deciding
  the second appeal. This Court held that when such an
  application was pending, it was the duty of the High Court to        B
  deal with the same on merits and not having been done so, there
  was no other alternative, but to set aside the judgment of the
  High Court and to remit the appeal for a fresh decision in the
  second appeal after taking into consideration the application
  under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.                                          c
      16. In the same context, reference was also made to a
subsequent decision of this Court in Balawwa & Anr. vs.
Hasanabi & Ors. [(2000) 9 SCC 272], in which the question of
ouster of the Civil Court's jurisdiction fell for consideration in
view of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. This Court held          D
that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted only in respect
of s.uch reliefs as could be granted by the Special Tribunal
under the Special Statute but in other respects the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court was not ousted.
                                                                       E
      17. Mr. Ramchandran submitted that the preliminary issue
relating to the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as envisaged
under Section 133 (2) of the 1961 Act, could not have been
decided without taking evidence as to the character of the lands
in question. Mr. Ramchandran submitted that the order of the           F
High Court was not capable of being entertained and was liable
to be set aside.

     18. On the other hand, appearing for the Respondent No.1,
Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned Senior Advocate, pointed out
from the: plaint of OS No.1457 of 2005, filed by R. Ravindra           G
Reddy in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, that a fraud had been
perpetrated by the said Annaiah Reddy only to deprive the
plaintiffs of their right and share in the scheduled properties.
Mr. Vasudev pointed out that in the same breath it had also            H
     954      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A been admitted that Pilla Reddy had conceded grant of tenancy
   rights in favour of late Annaiah Reddy, though without
   knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. Mr. Vasudev submitted
   that the question of obtaining the consent of the plaintiffs by their
   grandfather, Pilla Reddy, for grant of tenancy rights in favour of
B Annaiah Reddy, did not arise since he was holding the tenancy
 · rights in respect of the said land.

       19. Mr. Vasudev also referred to paragraph 16 of the plaint
  where it was stated that the cause of action for the suit arose
C in January 2005 as the plaintiffs/respondents were continuously
  demanding partition and separate possession of their share in
  the scheduled properties and the petitioners herein failed to
  effect partition, but the other respondents were continuing to
  make attempts to trespass/interfere with and to disturb the
  Respondent No.1 's possession and enjoyment of the
D scheduled properties.

      20. Mr. Vasudev then brought to our notice the
  proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore District,
  Anekal Taluk, in Case No.LRF/A.T.C./154/ 75-76 dated 11th
E December, 1975, in which the Petitioner was shown as M.
  Annaiah Reddy and H. Pilla Reddy was shown as the
  Respondent. 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:-
F
           "AU the above mentioned Sy. Nos. lands are situated at
           Halasahalli Thippasasndra Village, Sarjapura Hobli. The
           petitioner claims occupancy right in the above mentioned
           Sy. Nos. and produced the order copy dated 30.12.74.
           The date for enquiry was fixed on 11.12. 75 and on the
G.         same day the enquiry was conducted and the respondent
           agreed that occupancy rights claimed by the petitioner in
           the above said Sy. Nos. Therefore all the members of the
           Tribunal have unanimously accepted the contention of the
           petitioner and the respondent and resolved to grant
H
   R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. v. H. RAMAIAH                   955
       REDDY AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

     occupancy rights in favour of petitioner to the extent of        A
     lands in the above-said Sy. Nos. as per possession."

     21. Mr. Vasudev submitted that it would be amply clear
from the said order that Pilla Reddy had agreed to the claim
of occupancy rights by M. Annaiah Reddy. Furthermore, such
                                                                      8
order had never been questioned by H. Pilla Reddy as being
fraudulent or having been obtained by fraudulent means.

     22. Mr. Vasudev referred to the decision of this Court in
K.O. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [(2008) 12 SCC
481], in which the issue relating to fraud perpetrated on Court       C
was considered in detail and it was held that fraud practised
on the Court would vitiate all judicial acts, since fraud is an act
of deliberate deception with the design of securing something
by taking unfair advantage of another.
                                                                      D
     23. Mr. Vasudev also referred to the decision of this Court
in Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa [AIR 1994 SC 1190], in which this
Court held that the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act was entitled to decide the question as to whether the joint
family or one of its members was a tenant in respect of the land      E
in question and that such decision was subject to review under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

     24. Mr. Vasudev submitted that since the preliminary
objections made on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 herein had
been duly accepted relating to the maintainability of the suit,       F
on account of the bar imposed under Section 133(1)(i) and (2)
of the 1961 Act and the bar of limitation, no interference was
called for with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

     25. As has been mentioned hereinbefore, out of 11 issues G
and the additional issue formulated by the Trial Court, issue
No.6 and tne additional issue relating to the bar of limitation
and maintainability in view of Section 132(2) of the 1961 Act,
were taken up for consideration as preliminary issues. In fact,
in view of the decision on the said two issues, no other issue . H
        956 ·     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 2 S.C.R.

                                              "'
    A .was either taken up for consideration or decided. Our inquiry
       in this petition is, therefore, confined to the said two issues
       alone.1

            ,26. The Trial Court answered issue No.6 in the affirmative
        and additional issue No.1 in the negative holding that the suit
    8
        was barred by limitation and was not maintainable in view of
        the bar of Section 132(2) of the 1961 Act We have considered
        the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties in
        respect of the two issues arid we agree with the views
        expressed by the Trial Court as also the High Court on the said
    C   two issues.

                 27. As far as tl)e question of limitation is concerned, the
            order of the Land Tribunal, Anekal, was passed on 11th
     . December, 1975, whereas the suit was filed by the Petitioners
    Q;: herein in 2005 seeking declaration, partition and permanent
      , ': ipjUnction in respect of the properties which were the subject
      · '. matter of the ord.er of the Tribunal. An attempt has been made
      · · · t6bring the said suit within the period of limitation by indicating
            that the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 had tried to disturb the
    E · possession of the Petitioners during the year 2004-05 on the
            ground of their alleged purchase of the suit lands from Annaiah
          ·Reddy. It was sought to be urged that Pilla Reddy had admitted
         ' the claim of the Respondents on having acquired occupancy
            rights before the Tribunal, without the knowledge and consent
    F of the Petitioners. Both the Trial Court, as well as the High
            Court, have dealt with this aspect of the matter and have found
            that it was on record that notice of the proceedings before the
•           Umd Tribunal had been given in the village in respect of the
I           application filed by Annaiah Reddy. It is also on record that the
~          father of the Petitioners was quite aware of the orders of the
f   G Land Tribunal as in OS No.75 of 1986 he had taken a specific
           standthat:one     of ~he suit properties, namely, Survey No.46, is
            a tenant~~ ·propel1y, and that the Land Tribunal, Anekal, had
            conferred, bcctJp~rioy rights in favour of M. Annaiah Reddy. The
            ~,igh Court has bbserved that inspite of the same, the father of
    H
   R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. v. H. RAMAIAH                   957
       REDDY AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

the Petitioners did not question the correctness of the order of      A
the Tribunal. It is on that basis that the Courts below held that
the Petitioners had knowledge of the concession made by Pilla
Reddy in favour of Annaiah Reddy and negated their contention
that they were not aware of the same till they /signed the
comprom~se petition before this Court in the appeal arising out       B
of OS No.75 of 1986.

     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                  C
purportedly attempted to disturb the possession of the
Petitioners.

      29. As far as the second issue is concerned, although
ouster of jurisdiction of the Courts is not to be readily inferred,
it is quite clear from the provisions of Sections 132(2) and          D
133(1)(i) of the 1961 Act that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
in matters to be decided by the Tribunal, and to question a
decision of the Tribunal stands ousted by Section 132 of the
1961 Act which provides as follows :-
                                                                      E
    "132. Bar of jurisdiction - (1) No civil court shall have
    jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which
    is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or
    dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, an officer
    authorized under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the
    Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under            F
    Section 83, the Tribunal, the Tehsildar, the Karnataka
    Appellate Tribunal or the State Government in exercise of
    their powers of control.

    (2) No order of the Deputy Commissioner, an officer               G
    authorized under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the
    Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under
    Section 83, the Tribunal, the Tehsildar, the Karnataka
    Appellate Tribunal or the State Government made under
    this Act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court."     H
                                                                          _-'.J.
             958           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 2 S.C.R.


         A               Furthermore, Section 133( 1)(i) and (2) of the Act
                   read as follows :-

                   "133. Suits, proceedings, etc., involving questions
                   required to be decided by the Tribunal.- ( 1)
         B         Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in
                   force.-

                    (i)      no civil or criminal court or officer or authority shall,
                             in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land •
                             decide the question whether such land is or not
         c                   agricultural land and whether the person claiming
                             to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said
                             land from prior to 1st March, 1974;

                    (ii)     xx x
         D
                    (ii)     xx x

                    (iii)    xx x

                   (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall preclude the civil or
         E         criminal court or the officer or authority from proceeding
                   with the suit, case or proceedings in respect of any matter
                   other than that referred to in that sub-section."

                 30. It is clear from the above that the jurisdiction of the Civil
         F or Criminal Court or Officer or Authority stood ousted in matters
           where a decision had to be taken as to whether the land in
           question was agricultural land or not and whether the person
           claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said
           land from prior to 1st April, 1974. In the instant case, the
           question as to whether Annaiah Reddy was an occupancy
         G tenant or not and whether Pilla Reddy had given his consent to
           such claim is in the domain of the Land Tribunal and it has been
           correctly held by the Courts below that the Civil Court had no
           jurisdiction to decide such a question.

         H         31. As far as fraud is concerned, it is no doubt true, as
[,l :.
  R. RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. v. H. RAMAIAH                    959
      REDDY AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

submitted by Mr. Ramchandran, that fraud vitiates all actions        A
taken pursuant thereto and in Lord Denning's words 'fraud
unravels everything'. However, in the instant case, there is
nothing on record to suggest that Annaiah Reddy committed
any fraud on Pilla Reddy, who willingly accepted the claim of
Annaiah Reddy to occupancy rights over the land in question.         B

   , 32. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere
with the judgment and order of the High Court impugned in
these proceedings and the Special Leave Petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.                                              c
       33. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

D.G.                         Special Leave Petition dismissed