Karnataka High Court
Manohar Reddy vs Srinivas And Ors on 1 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
RFA No. 200194 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200194 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
MANOHAR REDDY
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY MANNUR,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. HEMA L.KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRINIVAS
S/O BASAVANTAPPA,
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN AGE: 60 YEARS,
JAMKHANDI OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH R/O: LINGASUGUR,
COURT OF TQ: LINGASUGUR,
KARNATAKA DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
2. NAGARAJA
S/O BASAVANTAPPA,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
RFA No. 200194 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. AMARESH
S/O BASAVANTAPPA,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
4. SMT. BALAMMA
D/O BASAVANTAPPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
5. SMT. MABI
D/O BASAVANTAPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
6. SMT. YANKAMMA
W/O KALINGAPPA,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
7. MANAPPAYYA
S/O HANUMANTAPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
8. SHIVAMURTHAPPA
S/O HANUMANTAPPA,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
RFA No. 200194 of 2024
HC-KAR
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
9. LAXMIPUTRAPPA
S/O HANUMANTAPPA,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
10. TIRUPATHI
S/O HANUMANTAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
11. SURAYACHANDRA
S/O HANUMANTAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
12. SMT. CHANNAMMA
W/O MUDDALINGAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
13. SMT. MAHNATAMMA
W/O SHARANAPPA AIDANAL,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: LINGASUGUR,
TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
RFA No. 200194 of 2024
HC-KAR
14. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS,
ADLR OFFICE LINGASUGUR - 584 122.
15. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, RAICHUR - 584 101.
16. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
17. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
18. THE TAHSILDAR,
LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R13;
SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R14 TO R18;
R1, R2, R4 TO R12 ARE SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.206/2024 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, LINGASUGUR AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024
RENDERED IN THE SAID SUIT, THEREBY RESTORING THE SUIT TO
ITS ORIGINAL POSITION FOR THE SAME BEING PROCEEDED WITH
ON ITS MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
RFA No. 200194 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of
learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Challenging order dated 23.11.2024 passed by
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, in O.S.no.206/2024
allowing IA.no.V under Order VII Rule 11(A) and (D) of CPC
and rejecting plaint, this appeal is filed.
3. Smt.Hema L.Kulkarni, learned counsel submitted
appeal was by plaintiff challenging order of rejection of plaint.
It was submitted plaintiff had filed suit in O.S.no.206/2024
seeking for declaration of his title in respect of land bearing
Sy.no.391/1 measuring 02 acres 17 guntas, out of total extent
of 24 acres 36 guntas situated at Karadakal Village, Tq:
Lingasugur (for short "suit property"); for perpetual injunction
against interference by defendants no.1 to 13 and for direction
to revenue authorities for rectification of revenue entries etc. It
was submitted suit was filed on 07.06.2024. Along with plaint,
plaintiff had filed IA.no.I of 2024 under Section 80(2) of CPC
for dispensation of notice under 80(1) CPC to defendants no.14
to 18 and IA.no.2 of 2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for
staying of mutation proceedings in RRT 13124 initiated by
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
HC-KAR
defendants no.10 and 12 before defendant no.18 in respect of
suit property. It was submitted on 07.06.2024, applications
were heard and on 11.06.2024. IA.no.1 of 2024 filed under
Section 80(2) CPC was allowed. However, IA.no.2 of 2024 was
kept in abeyance. Thereafter, on 11.07.2024, defendants no.14
to 18 were represented by Addl. Government Pleader and on
13.11.2024. IA.no.5 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC
was filed for rejection of plaint. It was submitted main ground
for filing application was that plaintiff had not complied with
requirement of notice under Section 80 of CPC, that suit was
barred by limitation, plaintiff had failed to avail alternative
remedy, there was no clear cause of action and suit was filed
on illusory cause of action. It was submitted application was
opposed by plaintiff by filing objections.
4. Based on submissions, trial Court framed following
points for consideration:
a. "Whether the defendants proves that, the suit of
the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to reject
U/o 7 Rule 11A and D of CPC?
b. What order?"
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
HC-KAR
5. Without proper appreciation, it passed impugned
order rejecting plaint.
6. Main reason assigned was that requirement of
notice to defendants no.14 to 18 who were Government
authorities was mandatory and on 11.06.2024 trial Court had
observed that this was not fit case for dispensation of notice
under Section 80 of CPC, consequently, suit was not
maintainable. Apart from above, it also observed that against
initiation of proceedings or orders passed in revenue
proceedings, plaintiff had alternative remedy and suit was
barred by limitation of Sections 61, 63, 64 and 135 of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It also observed that plaint did
not disclose cause of action. It was submitted said observations
were not only contrary to material on record but also contrary
to law. It was submitted, in plaint, plaintiff had stated that act
of private defendants approaching revenue authorities for
mutation of their names in respect of suit property amounted to
denial of plaintiff's title and therefore plaintiff had filed suit for
declaration of title. It was submitted for seeking declaration of
title, civil suit was proper remedy. For aforesaid reasons,
observations by trial Court that an order passed by revenue
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
HC-KAR
authorities would not give rise to cause of action for filing a suit
was without any basis. On said grounds, sought for setting
order and for allowing appeal.
7. Smt.Anita Reddy, learned HCGP appearing for
respondents no.14 to 18 and Sri Deepak Barad, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.3 opposed appeal. Learned HCGP
submitted that provisions of Section 80 CPC were mandatory in
nature and could not be dispensed with. Therefore, order
passed by trial Court was justified.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order
as well as certified copy of entire order sheet in suit made
available for perusal by learned counsel for plaintiff/appellant.
9. From above, since appeal is by plaintiff against an
order allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
rejecting plaint, on ground of perversity, point that would arise
for consideration is:
"Whether impugned order rejecting plaint by
trial Court suffers from perversity and calls
for interference?"
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
HC-KAR
10. This appeal is by plaintiff being aggrieved by order
rejecting plaint and allowing defendants' application in IA.no.5
filed by defendants no.14 to 18 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and
(d) of CPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azhar Hussain V. Rajiv
Gandhi1 has held that on reading of entire plaint it it is
manifest that there is no clear cause of action or suit is barred
by any law, a remedy is provided to defendants to seek for
rejection of plaint. It is also held that power under Order VII
Rule 11 would be available to Court nip suit in its bud on
aforesaid grounds. Main reason assigned by trial Court for
rejection of plaint are, on 11.06.2024, it had observed that this
was not fit case for dispensation of notice under Section 80 of
CPC which was mandatory. Perusal of certified copy of entire
order sheet in suit would reveal that on 11.06.2024, trial Court
had in fact allowed IA.no.1 of 2024 and dispensed with notice
under Section 80 of CPC. It had however ordered notice on
IA.no.2 of 2024. Observations of trial Court would thus be
contrary to record.
1986 Supp SCC 315
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
HC-KAR
11. The next reason assigned is absence of cause of
action and about order passed by revenue authorities not
giving rise to any cause of action.
12. Perusal of averments in plaint would prima facie
reveal that act of defendants no.10 and 12 in filing application
before defendant no.18 for mutation of their names in respect
of suit property was stated to be amounting to denial of title
and thus, providing cause of action for plaintiff for filing suit for
declaration of title. It is settled law, for seeking declaration of
title in respect of immovable property, Civil Court would be
proper forum. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Association Ltd. V. M.V. Sea Success I &
Another2 has held that while considering application under
Order VII Rule 11-A of CPC, entire averments in plaint have to
be presumed to be true. Paragraph-6 of plaint specifically
discloses date of accrual of cause of action for filing suit. Relief
sought by plaintiff is for declaration of title and perpetual
injunction in respect of suit property and for consequential
rectification of revenue records by revenue authorities. Thus,
2004 (9) SCC 512
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
HC-KAR
observations by trial Court that there is apparently no cause of
action for filing of suit would not be justified. Moreover,
observations that order passed by revenue authorities would
not give rise to cause of action would be contrary to law and in
any case, would not apply to present suit as direction by
Tahsildar to parties to maintain status-quo taking note of
pendency of O.S.no.206/2024 would be a post lite event and is
apparently not stated to be cause of action for filing suit. For
aforesaid reasons, observations and conclusions by trial Court
being contrary to record and law, would call for interference on
ground of perversity. Thus, point for consideration is answered
in affirmative. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated
23.11.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Lingasugur, in O.S.no.206/2024 on I.A.no.V filed
under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC,
rejecting plaint is set aside. I.A.no.V is dismissed.
O.S.no.206/2024 is restored to file of Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur.
ii. Since plaintiff, defendants no.3 and 13 to 18 are
represented, they are directed to appear before trial
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3543
HC-KAR
Court on 29.07.2025. Trial Court to issue notice to
others and thereafter, proceed with suit from stage
where it was prior to filing of I.A.no.V, in
accordance with law.
iii. Learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of
appearance within four weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
MSR,NB
