EARAPPA Vs. NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the original suit are the appellants in this appeal. They and the respondent were members of a joint family tracing its origin to one Earappa. They are from different branches. There was partition among all these members of the joint family on 2-6-1959 under a registered partition deed. By that time S. Nos. 222 and 117/9 of Yelvara village were acquired by the Central Government for the formation of an aerodrome. It also appears the compensation to be paid for this acquisition was not determined at the time of partition. However, later under the award in AC 38/64-65 Rs. 8233.30 p. was the compensation amount determined and to be paid to those interested in the land acquired. It is not in dispute that 10 guntas of land in all was acquired. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 6174-96 p. out of this compensation amount contending that 1/8th out of the said amount should go to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 1/4th to plaintiffs 3 and 4 and defendant each as agreed at the time of partition. In the suit they alleged that because the respondent defendant represented the family in all the acquisition proceedings, the award was drawn in his name but on behalf of the appellants. Rest of the allegations in the plaint are not material for the disposal of the appeal.

(2.) The written statement of defendant respondent contained a two fold averment. Firstly that subsequent to the family partition the plaintiffs amicably settled the claim for compensation and because of the settlement they did not put forth any claim before the competent authority or the arbitrator appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) (to be referred to hereafter as 'the Act'). This is how the respondent became the absolute owner of the properties claimed in the suit. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court in view of bar under Sections 19 and 8 (1)(f) of the Act. It appears the statements were being filed from time to time and in the last written statement filed a contention was raised that the plaintiffs had given up their rights by executing a document in favour of the respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit negativing the contentions of the respondent and finding that the document of relinquishment marked as Ex.D-1 was not proved and further holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine the compensation payable especially in view of the agreement between the parties at the time of partition. The Appellate Court which heard the appeal preferred by the respondent allowed the appeal and found that Ex.D-1 is proved and also found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Consequently allowing the appeal, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(3.) In this appeal preferred by the appellants, the following substantial questions of law have been set down for determination :