Dismissed

Smt. Pankaja v. Sri Dinesh Kumar

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021RSA/1774/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by an unsuccessful plaintiff challenging a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit was held not maintainable as it sought to override Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which bars suits inconsistent with Land Tribunal orders.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit due to the bar under Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Smt. Pankaja Vs Sri Dinesh Kumar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

R.S.A. NO.1774 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PANKAJA W/O LATE M.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.514/E, 3^RD MAIN, MARUTI TEMPLE STREET, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. B.L. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE - VC)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI DINESH KUMAR SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DOOR NO.3957/2, 2^ND CROSS, ANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET, MYSORE-570 012.

¶13

SRI BASAVARAJU SON OF LATE MARIGALAIAH @ MUDDAGALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DOOR NO.38, MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, OPP. SHIVAYOGISWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012. 3. SRI MARIYAPPA @ MARAIAH, SON OF LATE MARIGALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DOOR NO.38, MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, OPP. SHIVAYOGISWAMY HIGH SCHOOL, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶14

SRI RAMAKRISHNA

¶15

¶16

SON OF LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DOOR NO.3989, 2^ND CROSS, ANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET, MYSORE-570012.

¶17

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, DOOR NO.L/4, MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶18

SMT. NIRMALA W/O LATE BALATHRAJ, Dead and respondent AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Nos.7 to 9, who are her DOOR NO.45/C, 10^TH CROSS, LRs are already on RAJENDRANAGAR, d KESARE, MYSORE-570012.

¶19

KUM. APOORVA D/O LATE BALATHRAJ, MINOR, DOOR NO.45/C, 10^TH CROSS, RAJENDRANAGAR, KESARE, MYSORE-570012.

¶20

VISHWAS S/O LATE BALATHRAJ, MINOR, DOOR NO.45/C, 10^TH CROSS, RAJENDRANAGAR, KESARE, MYSORE-570012.

¶21

KUM. NISARGA D/O LATE BALATHRAJ, MINOR, DOOR NO.45/C, 10^TH CROSS, RAJENDRANAGAR, KESARE, MYSORE-570012.

¶22

RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN NIRMALA.

¶23

SRI. MAHADEVU S/O LATE BORAIAH,

¶24

¶25

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DOOR NO.116, 7^TH CROSS, A.J. BLOCK, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570012.

¶26

SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O LATE BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DOOR NO.116, 7^TH CROSS, A.J. BLOCK, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570012.

¶27

THIMMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAIAH MAJOR, DOOR NO.56, B BLOCK, GANESH NAGAR, UDAYAGIRI MAIN ROAD, MYSORE-570012.

¶28

SRI RACHAIAH S/O LATE MADAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DOOR NO.36, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶29

SRI. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DOOR NO.36, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶30

PUSHPALATHA D/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, DOOR NO.36, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶31

NAVEEN KUMARI D/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶32

¶33

DOOR NO.36, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶34

CHETAN KUMAR S/O LATE LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, DOOR NO.36, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶35

AMRUTHA VARSHINI D/O LATE LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, DOOR NO.36, MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶36

RESPONDENT NO.18 IS ALSO REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN.

¶37

SMT. NANJAMMA D/O LATE NANJAMMA, MAJOR, DOOR NO.G/1, BACKSIDE OF SHANKAR NURSING HOME, KESARE, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570012.

¶38

SMT. NAGAMMA D/O LATE NANJAMMA MAJOR, DOOR NO.G/1, BACKSIDE OF SHANKAR NURSING HOME, KESARE, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570012.

¶39

SMT. RAJAMMA D/O LATE NANJAMMA MAJOR, DOOR NO.G/1, BACKSIDE OF SHANKAR NURSING HOME, KESARE, N.R. MOHALLA,

¶40

¶41

MYSORE-570012.

¶42

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE NANJAMMA MAJOR, DOOR NO.G/1, BACKSIDE OF SHANKAR NURSING HOME, KESARE, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-570012. 23. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012. 24. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶43

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶44

SRI. SHIVAMADAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶45

SRI MAHESH S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶46

SRI SHIVASWAMY

¶47

¶48

S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶49

SRI. NAGAMALAI S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶50

SRI. MADESHA S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶51

SRI MARIDEV S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶52

SRI MUTHURAJ S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶53

SMT. GEETHAMANI D/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶54

SMT. MALLESH S/O LATE PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS DOOR NO.340, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE-570012.

¶55

¶56

SRI RAMAIAH S/O LATE SIDDANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, DOOR NO.3959, ANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET, 2^ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶57

SMT. THAYAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DOOR NO.3957/1, ANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET, 2^ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570012.

¶58

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. APARNA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.1; RESPONDENT NO.4 – APPEAL ABATED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.01.2021)

¶59

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.04.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.96/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.985/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) MYSORE.

¶60

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

JUDGMENT

¶62

This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the concurrent finding of fact and law recorded

¶63

by the trial Court in O.S. No.985/2005 and the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.96/2010, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction was dismissed.

¶64

¶65

The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties belonged to her father-in-law, Sri T. Venkataramanaiah, who died intestate on 06.06.1970. Pursuant to a partition between the legal heirs of Sri T. Venkataramanaiah on 06.12.1970, plaintiff’s husband Mr. M.V. Chandrashekar derived the suit properties as his share. The father of defendants No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, husband of defendant No.6, father of defendants No.7 and 8, husband of defendants No.9 and 10, defendants No.11 to 15 were labourers under the husband of plaintiff, who filed applications before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights over the suit schedule properties. It is stated that the Land Tribunal in terms of the order dated 07.08.1981 declared that the defendants were occupants of the suit schedule ‘E’ property. However, she contended that the operative portion of the Land Tribunal was not in tune with the survey sketch prepared by the Surveyor and the allotment of property was not in accordance with the survey sketch. Therefore, she covertly challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in K.L.R.M. No.2768/1976-77 before the Civil Court. The trial Court noticed the above fact and considered the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary

¶66

¶67

issue and dismissed the suit as not maintainable in view of Section 132 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as ‘Act’). An appeal preferred therefrom by the plaintiff also met the same fate.

¶68

A perusal of the Judgments of both the Courts makes it more than evident that the plaintiff attempted to challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal before the Civil Court, and therefore, she could not overcome the bar contained under Section 132 of the Act. The Courts below have rightly held that the suit was not maintainable and in view of the same this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

hnm

Smt. Pankaja v. Sri Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pankaja v. Sri Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt R N Meenakshi Vs P Kamalesh Kumar

Smt K B Yamuna Vs Sri K C Ramachandrappa

B H Gangadharappa Gowda S/O Devappa Gowda Vs Sharadamma W/O Late Ningoji Rao

Sri Umesh Rao Vs Sri N K Jagannivas Rao

Sri Joseph D Souza Vs Sri Dharmesh

Sri K Murugendran Vs Sri K Dakshayani Kumar