Karnataka High Court
Sri Nataraj vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5158
RFA No. 1449 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1449 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NATARAJ
S/OALTE MARASAIYA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2. SRI A KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE ADHIMULAM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SRI SHASHI KUMAR
S/O LATE VISHNUMURTHY
GRAND SONOF ADHIMULAM
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
4. SRI PRABHU KUMAR
Digitally signed by S/O LATE VISHNUMURTHY
HEMALATHA A
Location: High GRAND SON OF ADHIMULAM
Court of AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
Karnataka
5. SRI RAMESH
S/O LATE SAMPANGI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
6. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE SAMPANGI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT DINNUR COLONY
KADUGODI PLANTATION
KADUGODI POST
BAGNALORE EAST TALUK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5158
RFA No. 1449 of 2023
BANGALORE 560 067
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT OFFICE COMPOUND
BEHIND CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (EAST)
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
NEXT TO CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
5. THE THASILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
KRISHNARAJAPURA
BANGALORE - 560 067.
6. ASST. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
BANGALORE URBAN
SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.
7. MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION
3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5158
RFA No. 1449 of 2023
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MILIND DANGE, AGA FOR R1 TO R6)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED IN F.R.
NO. 1267/2018 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff under
Section 96 of CPC challenging the order dated 30.08.2018
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural
District in F.R.No.1267/2018, whereby the Trial Court has
dismissed suit filed by the plaintiff as not maintainable.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in the original
suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:5158
3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration based on
adverse possession against various departments of the
State of Karnataka and BMRCL. The office of the Trial
Court raised office objection regarding maintainability of
the suit. The learned Judge of the Trial Court relying on
the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
Gurudwara Sahib -v- Gramapanchayath Village,
Sirthala and another reported in (2014) 1 SCC 669
has dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Being
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.
4. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case
of Gurudwara Sahib (supra), which was relied upon by
the Trial Court in the suit, has been over ruled by the Apex
Court in the subsequent judgment rendered in the case of
Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others -v- Manjit Kaur
and others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 wherein it is
held that adverse possessee/possessory owner can not
only seek to protect his title as defendant in a suit but can
also file suit for declaration of his title and for permanent
NC: 2024:KHC:5158
injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his
possession, where owner whose title stood extinguished,
or any other person seeks to dispossess him from
property. This would include the case where the property
is sold away by the owner after the extinguishment of his
title: in which case also a suit can be filed by a person who
has perfected his title by adverse possession to question
alienation and attempt of dispossession-Rulings of
Supreme Court holding that person who had perfected his
title by adverse possession could only protect his title as
defendant in a suit, but could not file a suit for declaration
of his title/protection of his possession, overruled.
5. In view of the above said decision of the Apex Court
rendered in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra),
the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside
and matter requires to be remanded back to the Trial
Court for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the following
order is passed:
NC: 2024:KHC:5158
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed.
b) The order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District in
F.R.No.1267/2018, is set aside.
c) The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court
with a direction to the Trial Court to reconsider the
matter afresh and in accordance with law.
d) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
