SAVITHRAMMA Vs. H GURAPPA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances in which a Court will review a final decision are varied and in the course of numerous reported cases, many different facets of the law have been settled. The present case presents a slightly more interesting situation in so far as the present review application has been very stoutly resisted by the learned counsel who represents the parties to the original appeal in which that order was passed. The present applicant was admittedly not a party to that proceeding and is therefore labelled as a stranger. The applicant contends that she ought to have been a party and that as a result of the final order passed in the appeal, that she is seriously prejudiced and that therefore she has every right to claim a review of that decision. Her contention is also that this is the appropriate remedy and that the circumstances in which the earlier order was passed are (sic) manifestly unfair. There is a direct charge to the effect that fraud was played on the Court in the earlier proceeding; that this was deliberately done and that the action was accompanied by mala fides. The learned counsel who represent the original parties have stoutly resisted this allegation and I shall presently point out, it is their case that nothing of the sort had been done and that the compromise that was presented to the Court was in circumstances that would pass the scrutiny of any judicial forum. The controversy is not very limited in so far as this litigation was preceded by certain other ones to which a brief reference will be necessary and, therefore, the issue involved therein also ought to have some consequence. In sum and substance, the present applicant has prayed for a restoration of the status quo ante unlike in the majority of review petitions, whereas the respts, have seriously opposed the grant of this relief which is why the matter will have to be decided in the light of the issues that have been canvassed.

(2.) It would be advisable to briefly summarise the background that has given rise to this proceeding.

(3.) The applicant before me, Savithramma is one of the daughters of Kalappa Reddy. After his death in 1983, Bhagyamma one of the daughters brought a suit for partition and possession of her 1/7th share in respect of the estate of her father. There were various pieces of property involved and ultimately, a compromise decree was passed in OS.3939/83. One of the properties that came to the share of Savithramma, the present applicant, and in fact the only one with which we are concerned in this application is site No.2 which is demarcated in the sketch. It is relevant to point out, that the adjoining Site No.3 came to be allotted to the three brothers. Another aspect of the matter which is of some consequence is the fact that to the East of these properties, lies the property of one Gurappa Reddy and it is relevant to also mention that at the time when the compromise decree was passed in the year 1984 that Gurappa Reddy is alleged to have laid a claim and in fact encroached upon certain portion of both these sites Nos.2 and 3. The sketch indicates that this encroachment consisted of a triangular portion of land, the larger part of the triangle lying in the site No.3 and the narrow part of it lying in Site No.2. Subsequently Gurappa Reddy had filed OS 3065/80 in the Court of the 14th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bagalore for declaration of title and possession and he had claimed the whole of sites Nos. 2 and 3 which formed part of Survey No.8. His case was that his father had purchased this land under sale deed dated 29-7-1925. The trial Court had dismissed this suit on 27-7-1982. Gurappa Reddy had gone in appeal against this decision by way of R. F. A. No. 18-83. Kalappa Reddy was alive at the time when R.F.A. 18/83 was filed but he died shortly thereafter. After his death, his widow Revamma and two sons namely A.K. Chandrashekhar Reddy and A.K. Puroshothama Reddy were brought on record. According to the present applicant, who is one of the daughters of Kalappa Reddy, she was totally unaware of this litigation in which the compromise was arrived at on 29-3-1984. It is his case that shortly after the compromise was filed in the Court, orders were passed on 29-3-1984 in her absence, and without her knowledge, that she came to know about it and that therefore, she applied for setting aside of that order. It may be stated here that her principal grievance is not merely to the effect that she ought to have been made a party but that according to her in the compromise, a substantial portion of site No.2 has been conceded to Gurappa Reddy and in sum and substance she contends that the property which had become hers by virtue of the decree passed in the year 1984 has been given away by the respts. to that appeal who are her family members, without her knowledge and to her prejudice. A serious allegation was made that her family members had colluded with Gurappa Reddy and given away part of her valuable property and in the light of this allegation, it was contended that with this objective in mind, she had not been made a party to that appeal which virtually ought to have been done.