Dismissed

Smt. Seeramma, v. Sri. Muni Sanjeevaiah

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023CRP/401/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision against the rejection of an application to reject the plaint in a suit for perpetual injunction. The High Court held that factual disputes regarding independent title and the applicability of special land acts require full trial, justifying the Trial Court's decision to reject the rejection application.

What did the court decide?

Relieved parties from further costs for the filing of the revision petition.

Smt. Seeramma, Vs Sri. Muni Sanjeevaiah — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 401 OF 2023 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SEERAMMA, W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. AKKAYYAMMA, W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, W/O M N KRISHNAMURTHY, DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. MUNIRANGA, W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. MUNIRATHNA, D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. M.N. VENKATESH, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶15

SMT. SOWMYA, D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶16

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO E-136, 3RD CROSS, BEHIND GOVT. SCHOOL, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. NANDEESH C.B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. MUNI SANJEEVAIAH, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶21

SRI. M. L. JANARDHANA, S/O S. MUNI SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶22

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 25, NEW NO. 14, BHARGHAVI, 13TH MAIN ROAD, BETWEEN 15TH AND 16TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SR. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶28

THE IA NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have challenged the order dated

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

The suit in OS No.2582/2021 was filed for the following reliefs:

¶35

"a. Pass judgment and decree for a relief of

¶36

perpetual injunction against the Defendants No.1 to 7, restraining them from interfering with the

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶38

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.

¶39

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".

¶40

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,

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶42

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.

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶44

¶45

The defendants contested the suit and set up

¶46

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:

¶47

(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,

¶48

(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.

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶50

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.

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶52

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:

¶53

(i) It is now well settled that while

¶54

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

¶55

of action arose on 26.03.2021, when the defendants tried to interfere with their possession. No doubt, they also referred to the

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶58

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.

¶59

(ii) The provisions of the Act, 1978 are not applicable to the Act, 1961.

¶60

(iii) The contention that plaintiffs had paid 15 times of revenue assessment for condonation of the contravention of Section 7-A of Act, 1961

¶61

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:45866 CRP No. 401 of 2023

¶62

is a fact that has to be established after a full

¶63

fledged trial.

¶64

In that view of the matter the Trial Court was

¶65

justified in rejecting the application. The contention raised

¶66

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.

¶67

In view of the above, this revision petition lacks

¶68

merit and the same is dismissed .

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

KBM

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK

Smt. Seeramma, v. Sri. Muni Sanjeevaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seeramma, v. Sri. Muni Sanjeevaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. N. Jayanth Vs the State of Karnataka by Doddaballapura Rural P.S.

Shri E Vivek Reddy Vs Smt Akkayamma

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Pramerica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd.

Sri. Lokesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Prateepa T Vs R. Venkatesh

Manjappa Vs State by Women'S Police