Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Learned senior counsel also further contended as per the Order of the FDP court, the DC has demarked the property by sending the order to the ADLR. The ADLR independently divided the property, the order of the DC for bifurcating by the ADLR has not been challenged. Only the DC order has been set aside. Merely the DC order is set aside, the proceedings under section 144 of CPC attaining final stage and subsequently the order was obtained for registering the same in the stamp paper. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon the judgement as under;

27. Apart from that, as I have already held, it is a clear admitted case of the parties that three persons were the owners of 35 acres 20 guntas of land and it should be equally divided, which comes to 11 acres and odd guntas. Without any documents, the contentions of the appellant is that 14 acres of land falls to the share of Munishami son of Ramaiah, 10 acres 20 guntas falls to the northern portion of Irappa and 11 acres of land towards Southern portion of the land of Muni Swami, son of Byriga cannot be acceptable. If it is equally divided, it comes to 11 acres 32 guntas. The said 11 acres 32 guntas divided by 2, comes to 5 acres 36 and odd guntas. Hence, Munichikkaiah sold his 1/6th share of 5 acres of 36 guntas to one Subramanyam and he has not retained any property of his grandfather and remaining 1/6th share gone to Kempanna and Irappa's family where Poojamma was his legal heir who sold the property in the year 1953 to her brother Pillappa and the said Pillappa sold the said property on 18.01.1963 to Shankarappa, the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3. The trial court in O.S. No.542/1970 has rightly decreed the suit by granting 1/6th share by metes and bounds. Of course, an FDP came to be filed by the plaintiff-Shankarappa in FDP No.30/1982 as per Ex.D2 and the civil Court directed the Commissioner to divide the property. Accordingly, the said Commissioner divided the property by referring the matter to ADLR and the ADLR submitted report by dividing the property. Of course, the order of the Deputy Commissioner has been set aside by the KAT but the division of the property of 1/6th share made by the ADLR will be in tact. In the meanwhile, the FDP No.30/1982 has been withdrawn 06.01.1995 with liberty to reopen the same. Even in the FDP, without issuing notice for demarcation, it was set aside, but the actual demarcation was already done by ADLR. Even prior to that, in the year 1978, A.V. Subramanya sold the property to Munichikkaiah. On 26.03.1980, the said Munichikkaiah sold /6th share to one Kambaiah. Therefore, it is a clear case that 1/6th share remains with the family of Kempanna and to his son Chikkaveerappa. Thereafter, in the year 1953, Poojamma wife of sold the property to Pillappa and in the year 1963, the said Pillappa sold the same to Shankarappa, the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the contention that the decree obtained by father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S. No.542/1970, is said to be a fraud or misrepresentation committed before the Court is not acceptable.

39. The appellants also filed suit for specific performance and obtained decree, but it cannot be executable as there is no proper boundaries and measurement of the property and if the contention of the appellant that property was not bifurcated as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner and ADLR divided the property or demarcated the property, the question of claiming 8 acres of land does not arise. Therefore, once the dispute of the properties has attained finality and the 2nd round litigation, definitely applies the principles of re-judicata. Therefore, once again the appellants are not entitled for any relief claimed.

Therefore, the parties have acted upon on the demarcation made by the ADLR despite, the order of DC. Subsequently, the FDP filed by the respondents for getting the decree in the stamp paper, the same was allowed by the Court. The said FDP order has not been challenged by the plaintiff by filing any appeal. Therefore, the order passed in FDP No.96/2003 has attained finality and hence it cannot reopened. The final decree order at Ex.D14 and the same was registered as per Ex.D16 and the same had attained finality.