Karnataka High Court
Smt. Seeramma vs Sri. Muni Sanjeevaiah on 15 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
CRP No. 401 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 401 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SEERAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
2. SMT. AKKAYYAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA,
W/O M N KRISHNAMURTHY,
DAUGHTER IN LAW OF
LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by 4. SRI. MUNIRANGA,
SUMA
Location: W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
HIGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
5. SMT. MUNIRATHNA,
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
6. SRI. M.N. VENKATESH,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
CRP No. 401 of 2023
7. SMT. SOWMYA,
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO E-136,
3RD CROSS, BEHIND GOVT. SCHOOL,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 073.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NANDEESH C.B, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MUNI SANJEEVAIAH,
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
2. SRI. M. L. JANARDHANA,
S/O S. MUNI SANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 25, NEW NO. 14,
BHARGHAVI, 13TH MAIN ROAD,
BETWEEN 15TH AND 16TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 056.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SR. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.6
IN OS NO.2582/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
CRP No. 401 of 2023
THE IA NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC.,
FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the order dated
10.02.2023 passed by the XLIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in OS No.2582/2021 by which
an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC filed by
them was rejected.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as they
were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners were
the defendant Nos.1 to 7 while the respondent Nos.1 and
2 were the plaintiffs.
3. The suit in OS No.2582/2021 was filed for the
following reliefs:
"a. Pass judgment and decree for a relief of
perpetual injunction against the Defendants No.1
to 7, restraining them from interfering with the
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property, with their men, agents,
servants or anybody claiming under them, by
way of Permanent Injunction in the interest of
justice and equity.
b. To Restrain defendants No.1 to 7 their agents,
henchmen, executors, heirs, attorneys, assigns
or any other persons claiming under them, from
alienating or encumbering the suit schedule
property by way of Permanent Injunction, in the
interest of justice and equity".
4. The suit property is land bearing Sy No.21
measuring 25 guntas situated at Nagasandra village,
Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which was
a service Inamthi land endowed to the Village Office of
Thoti and regranted in favour of Munibylappa,
Munishamaiah and Thirumalamma. The plaintiffs claimed
that they acquired title to the suit property in terms of a
sale deed dated 03.04.1973 from Munibylappa,
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
Munishamaiah and Thirumalamma. The plaintiffs claimed
that plaintiff No.1 and Smt.Chowdamma and others had
entered into a deed of exchange in respect of Sy No.21
measuring 27 1/2 guntas and Sy No.8 of Sidedahalli
village measuring 4 guntas and Sy No.5/1A measuring 1
gunta of Chikkasandra village on 13.05.2003. As a result
of the deed of exchange, plaintiff No.1 became the owner
of Sy No.21 measuring 27 1/2 guntas. Plaintiff No.1
thereafter executed a gift deed in favour of his son plaintiff
No.2 on 24.11.2014, who was in possession of the suit
property. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants being
legal representatives of the original grantees, started
interfering with their possession and initiated several
proceedings before various authorities and therefore, the
plaintiffs were advised to seek for relief of perpetual
injunction restraining them from interfering with their
possession and also from alienating or encumbering the
suit property in any manner what so ever.
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
5. The defendants contested the suit and set up
independent title in respect of the suit property. They also
filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC
contending that the plaint was liable to be rejected on the
following grounds:
(a). that the suit property was granted by the state
government on 01.03.1972 and was regranted in
favour of Thirumalamma, Munibylappa and
Muniswamappa and on 30.10.1982, who
belonged to Adi-Karnataka caste. Thus the suit
filed in respect of such granted land was barred
under Section 5(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 as the
cause of action for the suit mentioned in the
plaint arose on the date when the Assistant
Commissioner passed an order reserving and
ordering restoration of the land to the grantees,
(b). That the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 was
illegal as it was within the period of non
alienation of 15 years as mandated under
Section 7-A of the Karnataka Village Offices
Abolition Act, 1961.
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
This application was opposed by the plaintiffs, who
contended that the suit was only for the relief of perpetual
injunction based on a specific cause of action and no relief
was sought for against the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner. They contended that they had filed WP
No.4077/77, before this court to declare the provisions of
the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1978 as null
and void. They claimed that this Court in terms of the
order dated 03.10.1980 directed the Revenue Authority
not to evict the plaintiffs, if they paid 15 times the revenue
assessment within three months. The plaintiffs claimed
that they paid the amount on 03.10.1980, which was
entered in the head of account No.029LR. They further
claimed that the act of 1978 is not applicable to lands
regranted under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition
Act, 1961. The Trial Court after considering the
contentions, rejected the same in terms of the impugned
order dated 10.02.2023. Being aggrieved by the same,
this application is filed.
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that the property in question was regranted to
Munibylappa, Munishamaiah and Thirumalamma. He
contended that since the land was granted to a person
belonging to the schedule caste, a suit for injunction in
respect of such granted land was not maintainable in view
of Section 5(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
Act, 1978. Though two grounds were urged for rejection of
the plaint, as stated above, both of them are liable to be
rejected in view of the following reasons:
(i) It is now well settled that while
considering an application under Order VII Rule
11(d) of CPC, it is the plaint alone that has to be
considered. Therefore, if the plaint in the instant
suit is considered, it is mentioned that the cause
of action arose on 26.03.2021, when the
defendants tried to interfere with their
possession. No doubt, they also referred to the
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in
RA(BN) No.3/2020 and claimed that they
challenged it before the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Rural. They contended that in the
meanwhile, the defendants were trying to
interfere with their possession. The plaintiffs
were well within their right to protect their
possession, as what is barred under Section 5(2)
of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is the jurisdiction of
civil Court in respect of orders passed under Act,
1978.
(ii) The provisions of the Act, 1978 are
not applicable to the Act, 1961.
(iii) The contention that plaintiffs had paid
15 times of revenue assessment for condonation
of the contravention of Section 7-A of Act, 1961
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45866
is a fact that has to be established after a full
fledged trial.
7. In that view of the matter the Trial Court was
justified in rejecting the application. The contention raised
by the defendants that they are in possession of the suit
property, based on their independent right is a question of
fact that has to be established after full fledged trial. In
that view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition
warranting interference by this Court.
8. In view of the above, this revision petition lacks
merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KBM
CT: BHK
