Partition of claimed granted land requires prior identification by the jurisdictional Tahsildar.

The original defendant, Kondappa, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the first appellate court’s decree granting the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and permanent injunction, after the trial court had dismissed it

During the appeal, Kondappa died and his legal representatives were brought on record. They sought to withdraw the appeal; appellant No. 1(e) requested liberty to pursue a pending partition suit, O.S. No. 117/2022, which included land claimed to have been granted to Kondappa

The appellants maintained that Kondappa had been granted two acres in Sy. No. 160, later assigned Sy. No. 186

The Court considered an earlier order in W.P. No. 6841/2010, which recorded that the plaintiff’s predecessor’s grant remained intact and permitted Kondappa to seek identification of a separate land allegedly granted to him before the Tahsildar

Whether the legal representatives could withdraw the second appeal while reserving liberty for appellant No. 1(e) to pursue the pending partition suit

Whether any claim in the partition suit concerning the land allegedly granted to Kondappa could proceed without first identifying that land, and whether such a claim could extend to the land belonging to the plaintiff

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Court did not decide any substantial question of law or determine the merits of the appeal.

Its directions were guided by the prior order in W.P. No. 6841/2010: the grant in favour of the plaintiff’s predecessor was not cancelled, while Kondappa was permitted to approach the Tahsildar to identify a separate land allegedly granted to him and seek reconsideration of his regularisation application in accordance with law

The present Court treated that order’s findings and directions as controlling the scope of any further claim concerning the land.

The Court accepted withdrawal of the second appeal but considered it necessary to define the limits of the liberty sought for the partition proceedings, because the proposed claim included the disputed granted land

In light of the prior writ order, it held that appellant No. 1(e) could pursue her partition suit, but any claim concerning the land allegedly granted to Kondappa was conditional on first obtaining an order from the Tahsildar identifying that land, in accordance with the directions in the writ proceedings

The liberty could not be used to reopen or assert a claim over the land held to belong to the plaintiff

Appellant No. 1(e) was permitted to pursue O.S. No. 117/2022, subject to first obtaining the Tahsildar’s identification of the land allegedly granted to Kondappa.

Neither she nor Kondappa’s other legal heirs could use that liberty to reopen or claim the land belonging to the plaintiff.

Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of