Findings Relating To Title In A Simple Suit For Partition Cannot Bind Third Parties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Telangana High Court, upholding the title of successors of Ryot Cultivators over the “Paigah lands” in Hydernagar, Telangana.The bench comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the claim of title raised by rival claimants/appellants, including M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd, on the ground that the land was a Mathruka property of the late Nawab Khurshid Jah, who was granted a Paigah by the Nizam of Hyderabad.The Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in 2019 had ruled that the appellants had failed to establish that the land in Hydernagar village is the Mathruka property of Khurshid Jah Paigah, from whom they were claiming title under a preliminary decree passed by the High Court of Hyderabad in 1963. The said preliminary decree was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court while sitting as a Trial Judge, in a suit for partition between the family members of Kurshid Jah, on the basis of a compromise entered into between some of the parties to the suit. It was the case of the appellants that the court in its preliminary decree for partition had ruled that the lands in Hydernagar are Mathruka property.The Telangana High Court had, however, held that the land in Hydernagar village was Jagir land, but prior to 1948 pattas were granted to cultivating Ryots. Therefore, the court held that title to the land had passed on to the cultivating Ryots before 1948 itself, who had validly conveyed title to their successors, i.e., the “claim petitioners”/ respondents. The High Court had found that the said land did not vest in the State Government after the Hyderabad Jagir Abolition Regulation, 1358 Fasli came into operation. Thus, the claim petitioners had perfected title over the lands by adverse possession.While hearing an appeal against the decision of the Division Bench, the top court held that the entire claim of the appellants that the properties were Mathruka properties, which were inheritable by the legal heirs, had failed. Thus, the question of executing a decree on the strength of the plea that the property is a Mathruka property, did not arise, the bench ruled.The Supreme Court further held that any finding relating to title to a property, recorded in a simple suit for partition, cannot be binding on third parties (para 14). Thus, it held that though the 1963 preliminary decree may not be vitiated by fraud, as held by the Division Bench of the High Court, but it was certainly not binding upon third parties like the Government and the claim petitioners, who have set up independent claims under the provisions of the Jagir Abolition Regulations.The top court further remarked that the High Court was compelled to hold that the preliminary decree was vitiated by fraud, due to certain circumstances. The Supreme Court said that the way in which a very innocuous suit for partition was converted into a suit on title and the way in which hundreds of final decrees came to be passed solely on the basis of a compromise entered into between few of the parties, demonstrated that the process of law was abused and misused. The court added that the judgment and preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963, and whatever happened subsequent to it, were not in accordance with the scope of enquiry and the procedure to be followed in a suit for partition.The Apex Court also ruled that no party to a suit for partition, even by way of compromise, can acquire any title to any specific item of property or any particular portion of a specific property, if such a compromise is struck only with a few parties to the suit.Facts of the Case:After a preliminary decree for partition was passed by the Trial Judge, the Executing Court passed an order on 29.03.1996 directing the Bailiff of the Court to deliver possession of the land to the decree holder; and thereafter a final decree was passed on 24.04.1998.Against this, the respondents (obstructionists to the execution) filed claim petitions claiming rights in the suit land independently under the provisions of the Jagir Abolition Regulations. In 2004, while adjudicating the claim petitions, the Single Judge of the Telangana High Court had ruled that Khurshid Jah did not leave behind any Mathruka property. The same was upheld by the Division bench, who held that the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 as regards the suit lands in Hydernagar village, was vitiated by fraud and consequently, null and void. The Division bench had also concluded that the claim petitioners/respondents, who claimed to have become the pattadars and the owners of individual plots in the Hydernagar Village, had established their right, title and interest in the said properties. The respondents claimed that their predecessors were the original cultivators of the land in Survey No.172 of Hydernagar village. They claimed that they became pattadars for the land under their cultivation by operation of law, namely Rules 2 and 3 of the ‘Rules Relating to...

Findings Relating To Title In A Simple Suit For Partition Cannot Bind Third Parties : Supreme Court

Parina Katyal

Tags