Sri C K Ramachandrappa vs Smt R K Saraswathi
2021 Latest Caselaw 6425 Kant

                            1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.390 OF 2021 (IO)

BETWEEN:

SRI. C. K. RAMACHANDRAPPA,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA POST,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
                                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. R K SARASWATHI,
       W/O DR. H.V.KRISHNASWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.1062, 7TH A MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
       JAKKASANDRA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
       KORAMANGALA,
       BENGALURU - 560 034.

2.     SMT. ANNAPOORNESHWARI C K.,
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
       W/O ASHWATHAPPA,
       D/O LATE C V KRISHNAMURTHY,
       CHANNARAYAPATNA POST,
       DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
       BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
                             2


3.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     AND EXEUCTIVE MEMBER,
     NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
     EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
     RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

4.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION
     OFFICER - 2,
     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
     NO.39, SHANTHI GRUHA BHARATH
     SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING,
     4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.MADHUSUDHAN ADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
14.06.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.2 IN OS.NO.454/2020 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE IA.NO.2 FILED
UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (a) AND (d) OF CPC., FOR
REJECTION OF PLAINT.

    THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the

petitioner/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.454/2020 pending

trial before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC.,

Devanahalli, challenging an order dated 14.06.2021, by

which, an application filed by him under Order VII Rule 11

(a) to (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

2. The suit in O.S.No.454/2020 was filed for the

following reliefs:

(a) To declare that the plaintiff alone is entitled to receive the compensation to be paid by the Fourth defendant for the acquisition of the schedule property;

(b) for mandatory injunction directing the Fourth defendant to pay to the plaintiff the compensation for acquiring the schedule property.

3. The plaintiff claimed that about 15 persons

were granted land in Sy.No.47 of Polanahalli Village,

Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and amongst

them, a person named Sri.C.V.Krishnamurthy was granted

4 acres of land and his name was entered in the revenue

records. It is claimed that Sri.C.V.Krishnamurthy sold the

said land to Sri.R.Kondappa in terms of a sale deed dated

09.02.1970. Consequent thereto, the revenue entries

stood transferred to the name of Sri.R.Kondappa. After the

death of Sri.R.Kondappa on 13.02.1971, the revenue

entries stood transferred to the name of his wife

Smt.Sharadamma. A dispute resulted between the family

members of Sri.R.Kondappa in O.S.No.4912/1993, which

was ultimately compromised in terms of which, the suit

property was allotted to Smt.R.K.Ramamani D/o

Sri.R.Kondappa. Consequent there to, revenue entries

were transferred to the name of Smt.R.K.Ramamani, who

thereafter sold it to the plaintiff in terms of a sale deed

dated 23.03.2007. The sale deed was further confirmed by

other family members on 07.07.2007. On 19.03.1981,

Phodi proceedings were initiated and the lands granted to

15 persons were re-assigned with new survey numbers

and it is alleged that the property granted to

Sri.C.V.Krishnamurthy was renumbered as Sy.No.126.

However, while preparing the Phodi record, the names of

the father of the grantees was not mentioned which led to

confusion resulting in wrong entries in the revenue

records. It is seen that in so far as land in Sy.No.126 is

concerned, the name of the grantee was mentioned as

Sri.C.K.Ramachandra S/o Sri.C.V.Krishnappa Shetty and

the name of Sri.C.K.Ramachandra was again shown in

respect of Sy.No.119. The plaintiff therefore contended

that name of Sri.C.K.Ramachandra was entered twice

wrongly in the Phodi register and that the same deserved

to be quashed. The plaintiff therefore filed an appeal

before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the revenue

entries challenging the Phodi proceedings in R.A.108/2021.

In the meanwhile, the suit property was acquired under

the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

The 1st defendant taking advantage of the entry of his

predecessors name in respect of Sy.No.126, attempted to

receive the compensation. The defendant No.2 being the

daughter of the original grantee, who had sold the same in

the year 1970, took advantage of the confusion in the

revenue entries, filed an appeal before the Assistant

Commissioner contending that she is the legal heir of

Sri.C.V.Krishnamurthy and that her name was not entered

in the revenue records. The said appeal was allowed on

21.10.2017, which was challenged by the defendant No.1

before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.171/2017-18.

The defendant No.2 also attempted to receive the

compensation from the KIADB, which perforced the

plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration that she alone is

entitled to receive the compensation from the 4th

defendant in respect of the acquisition of the land bearing

Sy.No.126 of Polanahalli. The defendant No.1 contested

the suit by denying the averments of the plaint and also

plaintiff's title in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.126.

She also contended that she was the only person entitled

to receive the compensation from the 4th defendant. The

defendant No.1 followed it up by filing an application under

Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (d) of CPC to reject the plaint,

primarily on four grounds, namely:

i) The acquisition was in the year 2014. Though the plaintiff had knowledge of the same yet, the plaintiff had not taken any steps within a reasonable time and therefore, the cause of action did not survive.

ii) The relief sought for by the plaintiff was capable of valuation and therefore, the suit ought to have been valued under Section 24(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958

(hereinafter referred to as the 'KCF and SV Act' for short) instead of Section 24(d) of the Act.

iii) The reliefs sought for in the suit was in effect for a declaration of title of the plaintiff and the suit was not maintainable against the defendant No.4, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another reported in (2013) 3 SCC 66.

4. The trial Court after considering the said

contentions and also taking into account the averments of

the plaint felt it appropriate to reject the application as it

was of the opinion that the statements made in the plaint

as well as in the application were to be established after a

trial.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the

present revision petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant

No.1 reiterated the contentions urged before the Trial

Court and claimed that the trial Court failed to consider the

application in the light of the circumstances mentioned

therein.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein submitted that the plaint

clearly disclosed a palpable cause of action, namely that it

arose in March-2020 when the defendant Nos.1 and 2

attempted to receive the compensation from the defendant

No.4. He submitted that there are antecedent records,

which indicate the grant of land to Sri.C.V.Krishnamurthy

and there are also documents which indicate that

Sri.C.V.Krishnamurthy had transferred the property to

Sri.R.Kondappa and thereafter, there are Court

proceedings in O.S.No.4912/1993, which established that

the suit property was allotted to the share of

Smt.R.K.Ramamani, who in turn sold it to the plaintiff.

Therefore, he submitted that the plaint did disclose the

flow of title of the property to the plaintiff and that the suit

property having been acquired, it was the plaintiff alone

who was entitled to receive the compensation. Therefore,

he contended that the application filed by the defendant

No.1 cannot be taken into consideration and the plaint

cannot be rejected at the threshold without going for a

trial.

8. In so far as the contention that the suit was

not properly valued, the learned counsel submitted that

the trial Court would frame an issue regarding the proper

valuation of the suit and that appropriate orders would

definitely be passed. In so far as the contention that the

suit is barred by law, he contended that the plaintiff has

not questioned the acquisition nor has he challenged the

quantum of compensation in the suit and therefore, the

suit is maintainable and the law declared by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in permission in the case of Brijesh Reddy is

not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. It is now well settled that an application under

Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has to be considered from the

stand point of the averments made in the plaint alone and

nothing else. A perusal of the plaint would indicate that the

plaintiff has disclosed the way in which he derived title to

the property in question and the mistake that occurred in

entering the name of the grantee in the Phodi records,

which resulted in a confusion and consequent wrong entry

of the name of the defendant No.1 in the revenue records.

It is claimed that it was the plaintiff who was entitled to

the land in question and that therefore, he was entitled to

receive the compensation that may be awarded by the

defendant No.4. A plain reading of the plaint clearly

discloses that there was a cause of action that deserved to

be enquired into by the trial Court. The claim of the

defendant No.1 that the cause of action had become stale

and therefore cannot be looked into, cannot be accepted at

this stage of the proceedings.

10. In so far as the other contention that the suit

was improperly valued, the quantum of compensation is

yet to be determined and therefore, the plaintiff could not

have valued the suit based on the compensation that is yet

to be determined. However, it is hoped that the trial Court

would frame an issue regarding the valuation of the suit

once the award is passed. In so far as the other contention

that the suit is not maintainable in view of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Reddy, as

rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff,

the suit does not seek to challenge the acquisition or any

issue related to the acquisition of the property in question.

The suit essentially is between the plaintiffs and the

defendant Nos.1 and 2 over the claim for compensation.

11. In that view of the matter the trial Court was

justified in rejecting the application and there is no merit in

this revision petition and the same is dismissed.

All contentions are left open. Any observations made

by this Court is for the limited purpose of disposal of this

revision petition and the same shall not affect the trial

Court to decide the case on merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/-