Dismissed

Rangaswamy @ Chinnakatte Rangappa v. M. Karun

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2023CRP/357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court for hearing Special Civil Revision Petition filed by defendant challenging Trial Court order rejecting his Interim Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC against plaint rejection in a suit regarding prescriptive right of way.

What did the court decide?

Interim Civil Revision Petition dismissed as High Court see any reason to interfere with Trial Court order.

Rangaswamy @ Chinnakatte Rangappa Vs M. Karun — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:38527 CRP No. 357 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 357 OF 2023 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RANGASWAMY @ CHINNAKATTE RANGAPPA S/O GOWDA THIMMANA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADIVALA GOLLARAHATTI, NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, DINDAVARA ROAD, ADIVALA VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577511

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRISH S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M. KARUN S/O. K.C. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

K.C. MANJUNATH, S/O. K.C.H. CHANDRAIAHSETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VMP BUILDING, SANTHEPET, HIRIYUR TOWN, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577598.

¶15

SMT. THENMULI, W/O. K. TANGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶16

K. MANI @ K. SHIVASUBRAMANI, S/O. LATE. V.KRISHNAPPA TEVAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶17

K. TANGARAJ, S/O. LATE V. KRISHNAPPA, TEVAR,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:38527 CRP No. 357 of 2023

¶20

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶21

K. BASAVARAJ @ BASAVESWARAN. K, S/O LATE. V. KRISHNAPPA TEVAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NEAR TAMIL SCHOOL, ADIVAL VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577598.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6)

¶25

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.7 IN O.S. NO.212/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYURU DISMISSING THE IA NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (a) AND (d) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The defendant in O.S.No.212/2018 pending trial before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 12.04.2023 rejecting an application (I.A.No.VII) filed by him under Order VII Rules 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:38527 CRP No. 357 of 2023

¶31

The suit in O.S.No.212/2018 was filed by the respondents herein for a declaration that they have prescriptive right of way over a patch of land belonging to the defendant described as ABCD in the rough sketch appended to the plaint and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the usage of the pathway to access their properties. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.45/3, 45/2, 45/4 and 45/1A of Lakkanal village, Kasaba Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk and that the only way to reach their properties was through the property of the defendant on the eastern side which was marked as ABCD in a rough sketch appended to the plaint. They contended that the pathway was used since time immemorial to reach their properties even by their predecessors in title. They claimed that on the eastern side of Sy.No.45, a cart track ran from north to south through the portion of the property of the defendant and the defendant in an attempt to stop the plaintiffs from using the cart track, was interfering and obstructing them which compelled them to file a suit for declaration of their prescriptive right of easement and for perpetual injunction.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:38527 CRP No. 357 of 2023

¶34

The defendant contested the suit and thereafter filed an application under Order VII Rules 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC contending (i) that after the suit was filed, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had conveyed their respective properties and therefore, they had no subsisting right, title or interest and could not pursue the suit. (ii) That the pathway over which the plaintiffs claimed an easement by prescription was not the subject matter of the suit and all that was mentioned in the suit were the properties purchased by the plaintiffs. (iii) That the plaintiffs had themselves claimed in the plaint that the alleged right of way was maintained as a cart track by the Taluk and Gram Panchayath and therefore, claim of the plaintiffs that they had right of easement over the pathway running through the land of the defendant, is contrary to the pleading and therefore, suit relief cannot be granted.

¶35

The Trial Court after considering the material placed on record and the contention urged by the defendant held that the plaint cannot be rejected on the contention urged by the defendant as there was a clear cause of action for filing the suit and filing of the plaint was not prohibited under any law.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:38527 CRP No. 357 of 2023

¶38

Consequently, it rejected the application by the impugned order.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant has filed this petition.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that there was inherent inconsistencies in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction to reject the plaint as it did not disclose a clear cause of action. He contended that when the plaintiffs themselves claimed that the cart track was maintained by the Taluk and Gram Panchayath, the question of plaintiffs again seeking for right of easement over it does not arise. He further contended that the plaintiffs have not mentioned the area over which they allegedly had a right of easement. Further more, he contends that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had disposed off the properties after the suit was filed and hence, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were not interested in the suit and hence, the evidence adduced by PW.1 had to be eschewed.

¶41

The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs

¶42

on the other hand contended that the plaint clearly disclosed a

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38527 CRP No. 357 of 2023

¶44

cause of action and it is undisputed that the properties of the plaintiffs abut the property of the defendant. He contends that the suit is not only filed by the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 but by other plaintiffs and therefore, the suit cannot be rejected partially on the ground that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had disposed off the properties. He contends that the pathway over which the plaintiffs had acquired prescriptive right, is identified in a sketch which is appended to the plaint and therefore, there is no sufficient material which meets the requirement under Order VII Rule 3 of CPC.

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶46

learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

¶47

The defendant had claimed that the suit did not disclose a clear cause of action and that it was barred by law. A perusal of the plaint discloses that the plaintiffs were claiming a prescriptive right over a portion of the property belonging to the defendant to reach their properties. They also contend that the cause of action for the suit arose a month prior to the filing of the suit when the defendant attempted to obstruct the usage

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:38527 CRP No. 357 of 2023

¶50

of the pathway. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the suit did not disclose a clear case of action. The contentions urged by the learned counsel for the defendant, have to be adjudicated in a trial before the Civil Court and cannot be a ground to reject the plaint. The learned counsel for the defendant did not point out as to which law prohibited the filing of the suit in question. Therefore, there was no justification to invoke the provision of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. In view of the above, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the defendant. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the same.

¶51

Consequently, this petition is dismissed .

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

PMR

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Rangaswamy @ Chinnakatte Rangappa v. M. Karun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaswamy @ Chinnakatte Rangappa v. M. Karun

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

Vinay Vajandar Vs M/S Sgp Prajwal Agro Farms

Sri. Kumaravelu Kailas Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Priyanka N Vs Nallappa

Smt Meenakshi Yadav Vs the State by Kadagodi Police Station

M/S Cheluvambika Pictures Vs C Kalyan

Mr. Dinesh. S Vs Smt. Hemavathi. J